Case Digest (G.R. No. 183551)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Engr. Rodolfo Yecyec et al., G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The factual backdrop involves Pioneer Amaresa, Inc., through its supervisor Calixto B. Sison, who on August 19, 2002 purchased a total of 2,433 kilos of rubber cup lumps in Talakag, Bukidnon, some 1,500 kilos of which were bought from Julieto Edon, caretaker of the plantation of Albert Pono. Because Pioneer lacked local storage, Sison kept the purchased rubber inside the fenced premises he rented as his residence.
On August 19, 2002 a group led by Avelino Sechico, chairman of the FARBECO Multi-purpose Cooperative, accompanied by two police officers and several cooperative members, inspected the rubber and claimed that six tons of rubber were earlier stolen from FARBECO. On August 30, 2002, respondent Rodolfo Yecyec, with about 35 men including the other respondents, arrived in a truck, forced entry into Sison's fenced premises, and loaded rubber cup lumps onto their vehicle; two men (respondents Benjamin Toto and Ireneo Vino) were armed. Sison left to fetch police and barangay officers; upon the arrival of police officer Billy Dahug and a barangay kagawad the group left hastily, leaving only 207 kilos remaining. The value of the taken rubber was P27,825.00.
Sison filed an affidavit-complaint; the PNP of Talakag filed a criminal complaint for Robbery with Intimidation before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which, after preliminary investigation, found probable cause for Robbery with Intimidation. The Provincial Prosecutor, however, downgraded liability to the lesser offense of Theft, concluding the evidence did not show that force or intimidation sufficient for robbery was employed. An Information for Theft (Articles 308 and 309, RPC) was thereafter filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon.
The RTC, after its own review, dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, holding that two essential elements of Theft were absent: (1) that the property belonged to another, and (2) intent to gain, because respondents acted openly in broad daylight and under a claim of ownership (the RTC found their taking was in good faith). Pioneer sought reconsideration which was denied. Pioneer and the public prosecutor then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, on June 27, 2008, affirmed the RTC and dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause, agreeing that intent to gain was absent and that forcible taking under avowed claim of titl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC and the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the Information for the crime of Theft for want of probable cause?
- May a trial court overturn the public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause absent a showing of manifest error or grave a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)