Title
Abundo vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 97880
Decision Date
Jan 15, 1992
Public officer Rafael Abundo, accused of qualified theft, acquitted as consent for using unserviceable Jeep chassis was proven, chassis returned, no criminal intent established.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 69494)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding theft and relevant procurement regulations under Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code).

Facts of the Case

On October 23, 1985, Abundo requested permission to use a junk chassis from the DPWH’s inventory. Marcelo R. Alberto, the Motor Pool Officer, approved this request. Following this authorization, the chassis was delivered to Abundo, who later sought to use it for assembling a private vehicle. In December 1985, Abundo returned the chassis to the DPWH after issues arose during an attempt to install a new body. Despite this, a complaint was filed against him in October 1987, alleging qualified theft.

Elements of Theft

The prosecution needed to establish five elements of theft: (1) taking, (2) property belonging to another, (3) intent to gain, (4) lack of consent from the owner, and (5) absence of violence or intimidation. The Sandiganbayan convicted Abundo based primarily on the alleged lack of consent for the taking of the chassis.

Lack of Malice and Consent

The core argument of Abundo's defense centered on the assertion that there was no unlawful taking or malice involved in his request for the chassis. Initially, he sought and received consent from his superior, who had the authority to grant such requests. The subsequent documentation and delivery of the chassis to Abundo indicated a transfer of possession with lawful consent.

Authority to Loan Unserviceable Property

The Sandiganbayan referenced Section 4(2) of P.D. No. 1445, arguing that unserviceable government property cannot be loaned out while pending destruction or auction. However, this interpretation was countered by the defense's assertion that Section 79 of the same decree allowed private sales and was permissive regarding the loan of unserviceable property, not prohibitive.

Good Faith Defense

Even if Alberto lacked the authority to issue the chassis, Abundo acted under the reasonable belief that he was permitted to use the chassis for official purposes. His intent to improve his mobility for public service was not indicative of criminality. The decision failed to fully consider the context of Abundo’s actions and his intentions.

Return of Property

Significantly, the chassis was retu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.