G.R. No. 163437 - Pideli vs. People

In March 1997, Placido Cancio and Wilson Pideli entered into a verbal partnership agreement for a subcontracted rip-rapping and spillway project at Tongcalong, Itogon, Benguet, awarded to ACL Construction by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Petitioner Ernesto Pideli, brother of Wilson and a government employee, facilitated the project by offering the use of his credit line with Mt. Trail Farm Supply and Hardware (MTFSH).

With Ernesto’s assistance, the partners secured an assortment of construction materials on credit from MTFSH.
After project completion, on November 17, 1997, ACL summoned all subcontractors for a meeting where it was revealed that final payment was withheld due to unsettled accounts with MTFSH.
Placido, Wilson, and Ernesto computed their expenses and determined a net income of P130,000.00; Placido was to receive one-half share of P65,000.00.

Placido and Wilson, after settling their obligations with the hardware supplier as per Ernesto’s advice, entrusted the entire disbursement to petitioner Ernesto with the expressed instructions to pay off MTFSH and deliver each partner’s share of the balance.
The following day, when Placido attempted to contact Ernesto for his share, he was informed that no funds remained, prompting Placido to file a complaint alleging theft.

An Information was instituted charging Ernesto Pideli with theft for allegedly taking P65,000.00, the share due to Placido, without the latter’s consent.
During arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty, and the trial focused on whether the act constituted theft or fell within another crime category such as estafa.
The evidence rested heavily on the testimony of private complainant Placido, who was the sole prosecution witness, while defense testimonies presented conflicting accounts regarding the nature of the arrangement.

Petitioner Ernesto Pideli argued that he was not a partner but merely assisted his brother in securing materials on credit and later paid the supplier, thus denying the misappropriation of funds.
Testimonies from defense witnesses, including Wilson Pideli, were inconsistent—initially omitting any partnership with Placido and later indicating that Placido was indeed a partner with rights to a share of the proceeds.
The discrepancies in witness accounts weakened the defense position and bolstered the credibility of the complainant’s narrative.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Ernesto Pideli of theft, sentencing him to an indeterminate term (ranging from 4 years of prision correccional medium to 12 years of prision mayor) and ordering him to pay civil liabilities amounting to P49,500.00 plus interest.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s judgment.
Petitioner’s appeal via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raised issues involving questions of ownership, unlawful taking, and intent to gain, which the CA had already addressed.

Whether the Court of Appeals seriously erred in affirming the finding that the property allegedly stolen (the partner’s share) was owned by the private complainant.
Whether the CA erred in affirming that there was an unlawful taking of personal property.
Whether the CA erred in affirming that the alleged taking was attended with intent to gain, thereby constituting theft.