G.R. No. 205180 - Viray vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205180)

Key Dates

October 19, 2006: Alleged commission of theft and breaking.
December 5, 2009: RTC Decision convicting for robbery.
August 31, 2012: CA Decision modifying conviction to qualified theft.
January 7, 2013: CA Resolution denying reconsideration.
November 11, 2013: Supreme Court Decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, fair notice).
Revised Penal Code
• Art. 308 (Theft)
• Art. 309 (Penalties for theft)
• Art. 310 (Qualified theft)
Civil Code, Art. 2199 (proof of pecuniary loss).

Factual Background

Viray worked daily feeding and cleaning dog cages from early morning until late afternoon. On October 19, 2006, Vedua left home at 7:00 a.m., locking all doors. Upon returning around 7:00 p.m., she found some jewelry, a Gameboy, a CD player, a Nokia phone, a jacket and a cap missing (valued at PhP 297,800) and the main doors broken. A plastic bag containing Viray’s clothes was discovered inside. Neighbors and household staff testified that Viray was present that day and left carrying a sack.

Defense Position and Alibi

Viray claimed he was absent due to flu; his mother notified Vedua at 5:30 a.m. His sister and aunt corroborated his illness. He denied entering the house or taking any property.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC held that the offender used force to break doors, elevating the offense to robbery. It concluded Viray lacked a confidant relationship with Vedua and could not have committed qualified theft. Viray was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years of imprisonment.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA found the Information failed to allege force upon things—a necessary element of robbery—and thus reduced the conviction to qualified theft. It held that, as caretaker, Viray enjoyed Vedua’s confidence and gravely abused it by forcing entry and stealing. The CA imposed an indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day arresto mayor to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day prisión correccional and ordered restitution.

Issues for Supreme Court Review

Whether the offense properly qualified as theft or robbery.
Whether grave abuse of confidence existed to sustain qualified theft.
Sufficiency and consistency of testimony versus alibi evidence.

Supreme Court Analysis

The Court applied the six elements of qualified theft (Art. 308 & 310 RPC).
It agreed that taking, ownership, intent to gain, and lack of consent were proved.
It affirmed that force on things (breaking doors) was not alleged and must be disregarded.
It found no grave abuse of confidence because Vedua had never entrusted Viray with access to the interior or her valuables; the very use of force negated any trust relationship.
In absence of force alleged and confidence reposed, robbery and qualified theft were inapplicable.

Supreme