PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BELEN MEJARES Y VALENCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Mejares versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Belen Mejares y Valencia, a domestic helper charged with qualified theft for taking cash and jewelry from her employer's condominium unit in San Juan. The case matters for two reasons. First, it restates the elements of qualified theft and explains why a domestic servant's taking is qualified by grave abuse of confidence. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it is the leading illustration of how Republic Act No. 10951, the law that adjusted the values of property on which penalties are based, is applied retroactively, and of what happens when the prosecution fails to prove the value of the stolen items through competent evidence.

Procedural History

Mejares was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on February 6, 2014, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft of articles worth 1,056,308 pesos and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. It also ordered her to pay actual damages to the complainant.

Mejares appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision in its entirety in its Decision of July 30, 2015. She then filed a Notice of Appeal, and the case reached the Supreme Court, which noted the parties' manifestations in lieu of supplemental briefs and resolved the sole issue of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Belen Mejares worked as a domestic helper for the Spouses Mark Vincent and Jacqueline Suzanne Gavino for about a year. On May 22, 2012, at around one o'clock in the afternoon, while a co-helper named Raquel Torres was cleaning the dining area, Mejares' cellphone kept ringing. Mejares hurried to the computer room to answer it and returned pale, perspiring, and panicky. She told Torres that her employer Jackie had met an accident and had instructed her to get something from a locked drawer in the masters' bedroom, destroying the lock if necessary.

Mejares then emerged from the bedroom carrying a plastic hamper with a black wallet and envelopes, talking on her cellphone. She claimed Jackie did not want the other household members to know, and that she was told to take a watch and jewelry as well because the cash was not enough to pay the other driver in the accident. She left with a green bag. At the lobby, security guard Pedro Garcia stopped her for lack of a gate pass, but she refused to call her employer and eventually left in her employer's car driven by Bonifacio Baluyot, who brought her to Greenhills. When she returned at three o'clock, she asked Torres if there had been a landline call and admitted she had purposely hung it up.

At four o'clock, Torres began receiving calls from Jackie, who sounded normal and animated, prompting Torres to doubt the accident. Confronted again, Mejares grew ashen and perspired. Jackie later testified that she had no secretary or aide named Nancy, that she had no accident, and that Mejares had told her about a caller who warned of publicity. Mejares' defense was that she was herself a victim of the dugo-dugo gang, having followed instructions from a certain Nancy and then from Jackie herself, and that she delivered the bag to an unknown woman at Baclaran Church.

Issues

• Whether or not Belen Mejares is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed upon her must be modified in light of Republic Act No. 10951 and the prosecution's failure to prove the value of the stolen items.

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 supplies the elements of the crime and the presumption of intent to gain from the unlawful taking.

Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, qualifies the offense:

Article 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.

This is the basis for raising the penalty by two degrees because Mejares was a domestic servant.

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code governs retroactivity:

Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony.

This principle, echoed by Republic Act No. 10951, allows the Court to apply the new, more favorable values and penalties to Mejares.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. Theft is consummated by the taking of personal property without violence or intimidation, with intent to gain, and without the owner's consent; qualified theft adds that the taking be with grave abuse of confidence. The Court held that intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking, and that the burden shifted to the defense to prove its absence, which the defense failed to discharge. Mejares' conduct before, during, and after the taking, her hanging up of the landline, her disregard of warnings from Torres and the guard, and her failure to verify the supposed accident, all belied her claim of good faith. As a domestic servant, she qualified the offense under Article 310.

On the second issue, the Court modified the penalty. Republic Act No. 10951 took effect during the pendency of the case and expressly provides for retroactive application. The Court stressed that the penalty for theft depends on the value of the stolen property, and that value must be proven during trial, not merely alleged in the Information. Citing its ruling that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry, and that courts cannot take judicial notice of property values, the Court found that the trial court had no evidentiary basis for fixing the jewelry at 500,000 pesos based on the complainant's social standing, nor for sustaining the values of the watch and currencies without receipts, descriptions, or exchange rates. Applying the rule that in the absence of reliable corroboration the courts may apply the minimum penalty under Article 309, the Court applied arresto mayor as the minimum, raised two degrees under Article 310, and then applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Doctrine

First, intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of another's property; actual gain is irrelevant, and the defense bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. Second, the taking by a domestic servant of her employer's property constitutes qualified theft under Article 310, because the helper gravely abuses the trust reposed in her as a member of the household. Third, the penalty for theft is determined by the value of the property proven during trial through competent and independent evidence; the prosecution's uncorroborated testimonies and the allegations in the Information are insufficient. Fourth, where the value is not reliably established, the courts may apply the minimum penalty under Article 309. Fifth, Republic Act No. 10951 is retroactive and favorable to the accused, consistent with Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Court denied the petition, affirmed the conviction for qualified theft with modification, sentenced Mejares to four months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional as maximum, deleted the award of reparation, and ordered her immediate release on time served unless detained for another charge.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the value of stolen property must be proven by competent evidence, and absent such proof the minimum penalty under Article 309 applies, with Republic Act No. 10951 applied retroactively in the accused's favor. Examiners use this case to test the elements of qualified theft by a domestic servant and the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10951.