Title
People vs. Sabado y Pangangaan
Case
G.R. No. 218910
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2017
An employee conspired with others to steal PHP 500,000 from a pawnshop, abusing trust. He claimed robbery but was convicted of qualified theft, sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218910)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Alleged offense occurred on or about September 13, 2006. Arrests took place on September 20, 2006. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 20, Imus, Cavite) rendered its conviction on September 25, 2012. The Court of Appeals affirmed by decision dated January 13, 2015. The Supreme Court rendered the final decision affirming the conviction on July 5, 2017. Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution is the applicable constitutional framework for judicial review.

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

The elements of theft were applied as articulated in Miranda v. People and cited authorities: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) taking done with intent to gain; (4) taking without owner’s consent; and (5) taking accomplished without violence against persons or force upon things. Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code when certain circumstances exist, including commission by a domestic servant or theft with grave abuse of confidence. Grave abuse of confidence requires a relationship of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance creating a high degree of trust that the accused abuses. Intent to gain is generally presumed from the unlawful taking (animus lucrandi), and conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of parties before, during, and after the offense.

Facts Established at Trial

Eyewitness Roger Alama testified that on September 13, 2006 he saw the accused unlock the pawnshop’s steel gate, call one of two unidentified men who then entered the shop, while another man remained outside as a lookout. The man who entered came out carrying a small bag and left; the accused later emerged tied and with packing tape on his mouth and claimed he had been robbed. Auditor Gina Brogada conducted an inventory showing missing items valued at PhP 582,200.00 and positively identified two men’s rings and one necklace recovered from the accused as items taken from the pawnshop. Police witnesses testified that at arrest the accused and a co-accused were found in possession of an 18-K yellow gold necklace with anchor pendant, an 18-K yellow gold men’s ring with horseshoe design, and a 14-K yellow gold ring with scale design, which were turned over to the local police station.

Defense and Trial Court Findings

The accused’s defense was that he was coerced at gunpoint into opening the vault, tied and gagged, and thereby became a victim of robbery; he claimed he later returned to work and assisted with inventory and a sketch of the robbers. The Regional Trial Court rejected this defense, finding the accused to be a trusted employee who managed the shop alone, had keys and access to the vault and knew its combination. The RTC concluded that the accused exploited the trust reposed in him, that theft was committed with grave abuse of confidence, and that the appropriate penalty was reclusion perpetua. The RTC ordered restitution of PhP 500,000.00 to the Diamond Pawnshop and directed that proceedings against the at-large co-accused be archived until they were apprehended.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision in its entirety, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and penalty imposed by the trial court.

Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court found no reversible error. It applied the established elements of theft and concluded that the prosecution proved each element beyond reasonable doubt: there was a taking of personal property belonging to another (the pawnshop), done without consent and with intent to gain, and without the use of violence or force against persons or things. The Court treated the thef

...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.