PEOPLE Vs SERANILLA (Theft of No Value Checks)
PEOPLE Vs SERANILLA (Theft of No Value Checks)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
This is an appeal from the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 28, Pasay City
finding "the accused ELY SANCHEZ and ABRAHAM SERANILLA guilty of qualified theft and FRANK
DE JOYA guilty of simple theft beyond reasonable doubt" and sentencing "them to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT for the accused SANCHEZ and SERANILLA and from TWELVE" (12) YEARS
of prision mayor, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for the
accused DE JOYA and all ... to pay the costs.
That on or bout the 3rd day of August, 1973, in Pasay City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, with grave abuse of confidence
being then employees of the Philippine Air Lines as manifesting clerk and cargo checker,
respectively, and as such has access to the Air Cargo Office at the Philippine Air Lines at
the Manila International Airport, aided and abetted by their co-accused, Frank Mafincode
Joya y Borbon, to whom some of the said checks were delivered for encashment and/or
negotiation and who had prior knowledge and was a participant in the criminal design of
his co-accused to commit the offense and with intent to gain, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away from said Air Cargo Office of the
Philippine Air Lines, MIA, a cargo freight consisting of packages containing dollar checks
of different denominations amounting to $127,450.51, part of which is hereto attached
and marked Annex "A" and made an integral part of the information, belonging to the
First National City Bank, Manila and being sent by it via air freight of the Philippine Air
Lines to the United States, to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Air Lines and
the First National City Bank." (Rollo, p. 7)
The prosecution presented witnesses who testified as summarized by the lower court in the following
manner:
Leonardo Lansang, Deposit Teller of the Clark Field Branch of the First National City
Bank, on his having dispatched cashed checks to their main office in Manila after taking
taped listing thereof duly accompanied by the corresponding ticket (Exhs. C and C-1);
Amable Malicsi, Pro-Manager of the Control Division of the First National City Bank,
Manila, on the shipment of the checks in question consigned to their office in San
Francisco, California for clearing via PAL thru the Emery Freight Corporation; the non-
receipt by their San Francisco office of the same as per cable advises (Exhs. D-1, X. and
X-1); and the damage suffered by their office on the peso equivalent of $127,450.51 as
well as interest and the margin between the buying and selling rate of said checks for
failure of their account to be creditted and the drawer of said checks to be debited by the
respective value thereof;
Paul Katigbak, Manila Manager of the Emery Freight Corporation, on their having
handled a package for FNCB for air shipment to the United States as per `Shippers
Letter of Instruction.for Contract of Carriage' (Exh. Z) for which they cut out Air WaybilI
No. 079-50746345 (Exh.W-13-A); their having turned over said package to PAL as per
transfer manifest (Exh. W-13); and PAL Cargo Supervisor Meynard Halili having wrote
(sic) him a letter to the effect that said package did not reach its destination (Exh. Y);
Sgt. Ernesto B. Balaquiao, Investigator of the 2nd C.I.S. District in Canlubang, Laguna,
also on the manner they effected the arrest of the accused Frank de Joya and Abraham
Seranilla and their having confiscated from them dollar checks as per the inventory
thereof he prepared (Exhs. K [same as Exh.K-T]; U (same as Exh. K-1 and his having
taken the statement of Abraham Seranilla (Exh. 0 and P) and that of Ely Sanchez (Exhs.
Q and R); and
The finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the three accused is based on the prosecution's
evidence, and the admission made by them in their respective statements (Exhs. W-6, P, Q and R)
which they executed after their arrest and the fact that bunches of the stolen checks in question were
confiscated from accused Frank De Joya andAbraham Seranilla (Exhs. K and L1) without any satisfying
explanation as to their possession of missing checks.
All of the three accused appealed from the lower court's decision and each filed a separate brief.
The accused De Joya raises the following assignments of errors in this appeal:
II
III
IV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE BUNCHES ACCUSED FRANK
DE JOYA DID NOT PROFESS HIS INNOCENCE RIGHT THEN AND THERE AT THE
TIME OF HIS ARREST IN HOLIDAY HILLS.
VI
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED FRANK DE JOYA IS
NOT A CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE WITNESS.
VII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CIS INFORMER DING NACO
HAD THEN NO MOTIVE TO IMPLICATE THE ACCUSED FRANK DE JOYA.
VIII
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT CHECKS ARE
WITHOUT VALUE.
IX
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED FRANK DE JOYA IS
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF SIMPLE THEFT
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION, (Brief for accused-appellant Frank de Joya, pp. 1-3)
II
III
II
III
The uniform and principal argument of the appellants is that their extrajudicial confessions were
improperly admitted as evidence against them and used to prove the existence of conspiracy. These
statements were allegedly obtained through threats, intimidation and violence and are, therefore,
inadmissible as evidence.
We find no merit in the argument.
The alleged repudiation by appellants of their respective confessions on the ground that these were
extorted by force, coercion and intimidation is as noted by the lower court negated by their statements
which contained details which only they could have known. (People v. Toledo, 140 SCRA 259; People v.
Ribadajo, 142 SCRA 637).
The confessions of appellants contain details which were known to them only and could
not have been supplied by the investigating agents of the CIS.
Q. From the time you were introduced by your friend with Mr. Seranilla,
will you tell us if you have been with a business transaction with him?
He answered,
The above answer of de Joya revealing his transaction with Seranilla a month before the
crime at hand was committed is a fact that shows the spontaneity of de Joya's
confession. The answer of 'de Joya could not have been invented by the investigators.
(People v. Ty Siu Wong, L-32529, May 12, 1978, 83 SCRA 125).
(Exh. P)
And the sworn statement of Sanchez declares the following points which could not have
been fabricated by the CIS agents:
T. Noong maiabot mo ang kahon kay Abraham, saan naman niya dinala?
(Exh. Q)
T. Matapos halughugin ang inyong bahay ng mga CIS agent, ano ang
nangyari?
(Exh. R)
It is significant that the alleged involuntary confessions contained both admissions and denials. (People
v. Banaan, 142 SCRA 410).
In the transaction between Seranilla and De Joya a month before the crime, De Joya claimed that he
cashed the $200.00 Traveller's check of Seranilla. On the other hand, Seranilla stated that he merely
asked De Joya to check whether or not it was negotiable.
Also, another factor indicating voluntariness of the confessions is that the appellants tried to minimize
their roles in the offense or tried to exculpate themselves. (People v. Ty Siu Wong, supra). <äre||anº• 1àw>
Q. Will you tell us, why you are sic in possession of this (sic) Dollar
Checks when you are (sic) caught or arrested by a team of CIS Agents?
T. Naghiwalay na po kami.
Also, as held in the case of People v. Ladrera (150) SCRA 113, 126):
The records are bereft of any reason why the rule enunciated in the cases of People v.
Mada-ISantalani (93 SCRA 317), People v. Balane (123 SCRA 614) and People
v. Villanueva (128 SCRA 488) should not be applied 'that where the defendants did not
present evidence of compulsion of duress nor violence on their person; where they failed
to complain to the officer who administered their oaths; where they did not institute any
criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment;
where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and where they did not
have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim, all these
were considered by this Court as factors indicating voluntariness.
The trial court did not commit any error in admitting the extrajudicial confessions in the instant case even
if the accused were not assisted by counsel inasmuch as said confessions were executed before April
26, 1983. (People. v. Nabaluna, 142 SCRA 446).
Conspiracy is present in the commission of the offense as, shown by the appellants' extrajudicial
confessions. (People v. Cortaya, 134 SCRA 526). As noted by the lower court, the interlocking
confessions give no room for doubt of appellants' conspiracy. (See People v. Rodriguez, 135 SCRA
483).
The accused De Joya contends that the lower court itself doubts the existence of conspiracy considering
the variance in the penalties and considering that Sanchez and Seranilla were held guilty for qualified
theft while he was held guilty for simple theft only.
Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution (People v. Mojica,
10 SCRA 515). Therefore, the trial court did not err in convicting the three accused of theft. And since
there was abuse of confidence in the cases of Sanchez and Seranilla considering that they were PAL
employees at the time of the offense, the lower court properly convicted them of qualified theft.
Apellant Sanchez contends thet asumming without admiting that he was guilty of theft, he should be
guilty only of simple theft. He alleges that theft by an employee does not necessarily designate the crime
as qualified theft. The bag containing the subject checks is part of the outgoing cargo of which he was
not in-charge, considering that he is an "incoming clerk." Also, the offended party in this case is the First
National City Bank (being the owner of the checks) with which Sanchez has no ties whatsoever.
The foregoing arguments of Sanchez are effectively refuted by the fact that he had
access to the place where the taking took place. Such access changes the complexion of
the crime committed to that of qualified theft. (Decisions of Supreme Court of Spain, July
14, 1904 and Oct. 24, 1904; People v. Jimenez, CA-G.R. No. 12094-R, Jan. 29, 1955,
cited in the Revised Penal Code, by LB Reyes, Bk. II, 1971 Ed., p. 604). Sanchez
<äre|| anº• 1àw>
Q. Now, will you inform the Honorable Court the nature of your work with
PAL sometime in August, 1973
Q. Will you tell us some of your duties as such incoming cargo checker?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that incident you were referring to, please tell this
Honorable Court?
A. After I have fixed the papers regarding the incoming shipment I went
on my way to the bonded warehouse to check the cargoes and it was
then that I saw a cargo fall from a pushchart.
Q. Now, did you know where was this pushcart you mentioned going then
when one of the packages feflt down?
COURT:
The fact that the FNCB which is the owner of the stolen negotiable notes is not the
employer of appellant Sanchez is of no moment. The relation of independence,
guardianship, or vigilance between the accused and the offended party' makes the
offense that of qualified theft. (People v. Koc Song, 63 Phil. 369; III Aquino, The Revised
Penal Code, 1532 (1976 ed.) (Consolidated Brief for the Appellee, pp. 30-31).
The appellants next question the cheeks subject other the crime.
Appellant Seranflla contends that the checks were Illegally seized from him and are, therefore,
inadmissible. There is no merit to this contention. The search and seizure made were by virtue of the
arrest, search and seizure order (ASSO) No. 1240 as mentioned in the operation investigation report
(Exhibit 10) of the CIS agents (Tsn., November 4, 1976, pp. 3-15).
On the other hand, the accused De Joya and Sanchez allege that there was no crime
committed considering the finding that the checks were of no commercial value.
It is of no moment that there was real or actual gain. The important consideration is that there was an
intent to gain. It is one of the essential elements of theft. (People v. Mercado, 65 Phil. 665).
The other assigned errors center on the factual findings of the trial court.
We have carefully studied the records of this case and we find no reason to deviate from the well-
settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded
respect because of its privilege of examining the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify (People v.
Aboga, 147 SCRA 414).
SO ORDERED.