PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GLORIA DALUMPINES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dalumpines

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Gloria Dalumpines, a criminal appeal from a conviction for theft. The accused was charged with taking hardwood lumber from a leased lot after she dismantled her house and hauled the materials away. The case matters for two reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court tests each element of theft, especially intent to gain and lack of consent, when the accused herself admits the taking; and it is a clean teaching case on how the value of stolen property must be proved before the penalty under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code can be fixed.

Procedural History

An Information for theft was filed against Gloria Dalumpines before the Regional Trial Court of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Branch 21. On arraignment, with the assistance of counsel, she pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court rendered its Decision on October 6, 2011, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to two years, four months and one day to four years and two months, and ordering her to return the lumber to the private complainant within fifteen days. From that judgment she appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors that no unlawful taking or furtive design was shown, and that the complainant had acquiesced in her act.

Facts

Gloria Dalumpines and her family had leased property on Magsaysay Street in Bansalan from the late Felix Esguerra, and after his death his daughter Grace Esguerra collected the rentals. In 1996 Grace asked the tenants to vacate because she intended to build, and she allowed the accused to build a new house on the vacant portion of the lot. The accused used lumber from the demolished old house, and Grace permitted this on the condition that the materials belonging to her be left behind when the tenant moved out.

In July 2000 Grace sent the accused a letter asking her to vacate and to demolish, transfer and remove everything she had introduced on the premises not later than the end of October 2000. The accused dismantled her house on October 28, 2000, and on November 1, 2000, while Grace was away for All Saints' Day, she loaded the materials on a truck and brought them to Digos.

Grace filed a complaint before the barangay. During the conciliation proceedings the accused admitted that she knew the lumber was not hers and offered to return it, but demanded reimbursement of her construction expenses, which Grace refused. The prosecution placed the value of the lumber at 51,930 pesos, but the only support for that figure was the complainant's own estimate.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, given her admission that she took the lumber.
• Whether or not the complainant's acquiescence, or the accused's claim of good faith, negates the taking or the intent to gain.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct, considering that the value of the stolen lumber was not sufficiently proved.

Applicable Provisions

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft:

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 persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and its words supply the five elements the Court applies.

Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalties by value:

Article 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.

This is the provision the trial court used to fix the penalty, and it is the provision the Supreme Court re-applies once it finds the value unproved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of theft are present. There was taking of personal property belonging to another, done with intent to gain, without the owner's consent, and without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The accused herself admitted the taking, and her statement at the barangay that she knew the lumber was not hers, that she would return it, but that she wanted reimbursement of her expenses, revealed intent to gain.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of acquiescence. The permission to use the lumber was conditioned on leaving it behind when she moved out. The letter asking her to remove everything she had introduced referred only to the materials she had brought in herself, not to Grace's lumber. The Court quoted the trial court with approval:

She was only allowed to use the same on the condition to leave the same when she would finally move out from the place.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in the penalty. The prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated estimate to prove the value of the property taken. Absent independent and reliable corroboration, the courts may apply the minimum penalty under Article 309. The Court further held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, since the maximum term does not exceed one year, pursuant to Section 2 of Act Number 1403.

Doctrine

First, theft under Article 308 requires five elements: taking of personal property, the property belongs to another, intent to gain, absence of the owner's consent, and absence of violence, intimidation, or force upon things. Second, a tenant who is permitted to use the owner's materials on the condition of returning them, and who carries them away upon moving out, commits theft; the permission is not consent to the taking. Third, intent to gain may be shown by the accused's own admission at the barangay that she took the property and sought reimbursement. Fourth, the value of the stolen property must be proved with more than an uncorroborated estimate; otherwise the minimum penalty under Article 309 applies. Fifth, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply where the maximum term does not exceed one year.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, the conviction was affirmed, but the penalty was modified to one month and one day to two months as minimum, to three months and one day to four months as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize this line: permission to use another's property on condition of returning it is not consent to take it away, and an uncorroborated estimate of value cannot raise the penalty for theft. Examiners use this case to test the elements of theft and the rule on proving the value of stolen property under Article 309.