119 Sy v. Secretary of Justice

3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 685
G.R. No. 171579. November 14, 2012.*
LILY SY, petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, BENITO
FERNANDEZ GO, BERTHOLD LIM, JENNIFER SY,
GLENN BEN TIAK SY and MERRY SY, respondents.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Probable Cause; Probable

cause refers to facts and circumstances that engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
respondents are probably guilty thereof and should be held for
trial.—Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and that the respondents are probably guilty thereof and should
be held for trial. There is no definitive standard by which
probable cause is determined except to consider the attendant
conditions.
Criminal Law; Robbery; Any person who, with intent to gain,
shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of
violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon
anything, is guilty of robbery.—“Any person who, with intent to
gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything, is guilty of robbery.” To constitute robbery,
the following elements must be established: (1) The subject is
personal property belonging to another; (2) There is unlawful
taking of that property; (3) The taking is with the intent to gain;
and (4) There is violence against or intimidation of any person or
use of force upon things.
Same; Same; Taking; Taking as an element of robbery means
depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with
the character of permanency. The taking should not be under a
claim of ownership. Thus, one who takes the property openly and
avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of
robbery even though the claim of ownership is untenable.—Taking
as an element of robbery means depriving the offended party of
ownership of the thing taken with the character of permanency.
The taking should
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001699477de9d93f08bbb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
* THIRD DIVISION.
442
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sy vs. Gutierrez
not be under a claim of ownership. Thus, one who takes the

property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good
faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of ownership
is untenable. The intent to gain cannot be established by direct
evidence being an internal act. It must, therefore, be deduced
from the circumstances surrounding the commission of the
offense.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Tiongco, Avecilla, Flores & Palarca for petitioner.
Inoturan & Associates for private respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
In a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed on August 7, 2000,
petitioner Lily Sy (petitioner) claimed that in the morning
of December 16, 1999, respondents Benito Fernandez Go
(Benito) and Glenn Ben Tiak Sy (Glenn), together with
“Elmo,” a security guard of Hawk Security Agency, went to
petitioner’s residence at the 10th Floor, Fortune Wealth,
612 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila and forcibly opened the
door, destroyed and dismantled the door lock then replaced
it with a new one, without petitioner’s consent.2 She,
likewise, declared that as a diversionary ruse, respondent
Jennifer Sy (Jennifer) was at the lobby of the same
building who informed petitioner’s helper Geralyn Juanites
(Geralyn) that the elevator was not working.3 Glenn and
Benito’s act of replacing the door lock appeared to be
authorized by a resolution of Fortune Wealth Mansion
Corporation’s Board of Directors, namely, respondents
Glenn, Jennifer, William Sy (William), Merlyn Sy (Merlyn),
and Merry Sy (Merry).4
_______________
1 OCP records, pp. 127-130.
2 Id., at p. 129.
3 Id., at p. 129.
4 Id.
443
VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 443

Sy vs. Gutierrez
In the evening of the same date, petitioner supposedly

saw Benito, Glenn, Jennifer, Merry and respondent
Berthold Lim (Berthold) took from her residence numerous
boxes containing her personal belongings without her
consent and, with intent to gain, load them inside a family-
owned van/truck named “Wheels in Motion.”5 The same
incident supposedly happened in January 2000 and the
“stolen” boxes allegedly reached 34,6 the contents of which
were valued at P10,244,196.00.7
Respondents Benito and Berthold denied the
accusations against them. They explained that petitioner
made the baseless charges simply because she hated their
wives Merry and Jennifer due to irreconcilable personal
differences on how to go about the estates of their deceased
parents then pending before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, Branch 51.8 They also manifested their
doubts on petitioner’s capability to acquire the personal
belongings allegedly stolen by them.9
Merry, Glenn, and Jennifer, on the other hand, claimed
that petitioner’s accusations were brought about by the
worsening state of their personal relationship because of
misunderstanding on how to divide the estate of their
deceased father.10 They also pointed out that the whole
condominium building where the alleged residence of
petitioner is located, is owned and registered in the name of
the corporation.11 They explained that the claimed
residence was actually the former residence of their family
(including petitioner).12 After their parents’ death, the
corporation allegedly tolerated petitioner to continuously
occupy said unit while they, in turn, stayed in the other
vacant units leaving some of their properties and
_______________
5 Id., at p. 128.
6 Id.
7 Id., at p. 127.
8 Id., at p. 103.
9 Id., at p. 102.
10 Id., at p. 100.
11 Id., at p. 100.
12 Id.
444

Sy vs. Gutierrez
those of the corporation in their former residence.13 They

further stated that petitioner transferred to the ground
floor because the 10th floor’s electric service was
disconnected.14 They explained that they changed the
unit’s door lock to protect their personal belongings and
those of the corporation as petitioner had initially changed
the original lock.15 They supported their authority to do so
with a board resolution duly issued by the directors. They
questioned petitioner’s failure to report the alleged incident
to the police, considering that they supposedly witnessed
the unlawful taking.16 They thus contended that
petitioner’s accusations are based on illusions and wild
imaginations, aggravated by her ill motive, greed for money
and indiscriminate prosecution.17
In the Resolution18 dated September 28, 2001, Assistant
City Prosecutor Jovencio T. Tating (ACP Tating)
recommended that respondents Benito, Berthold, Jennifer,
Glenn and Merry be charged with Robbery In An
Uninhabited Place; and that the charges against William
Go19 (the alleged new owner of the building), and “Elmo
Hubio” be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.20 ACP
Tating found that the subject condominium unit is in fact
petitioner’s residence and that respondents indeed took the
former’s personal belongings with intent to gain and
without petitioner’s consent. He further held that
respondents’ defenses are not only contradictory but
evidentiary in nature.21 The corresponding Information22
was filed before the RTC of Manila, docketed as Crimi-
_______________
13 Id.
14 Id., at p. 99.
15 Id., at p. 98.
16 Id., at p. 95.
17 Id.
18 Id., at pp. 145-149.
19 Also referred to as William Yao in the records.
20 OCP records, p. 145.
21 Id.
22 Id., at pp. 150-151.
445
VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 445

Sy vs. Gutierrez
nal Case No. 02-199574 and was raffled to Branch 19. On

motion of Jennifer, Glenn and Merry, the RTC ordered a
reinvestigation on the ground of newly-discovered evidence
consisting of an affidavit of the witness.23 This
notwithstanding, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP)
sustained in a Resolution24 dated September 23, 2002 its
earlier conclusion and recommended the denial of
respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
When elevated before the Secretary of Justice, then
Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong (the Secretary) reversed
and set aside25 the ACP’s conclusions and the latter was
directed to move for the withdrawal of the Information
against respondents.26 The Secretary stressed that the
claimed residence of petitioner is not an uninhabited place
under the penal laws, considering her allegation that it is
her residence.27 Neither can it be considered uninhabited
under Article 300 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), since it
is located in a populous place.28 The Secretary opined that
the elements of robbery were not present, since there was
no violence against or intimidation of persons, or force upon
things, as the replacement of the door lock was authorized
by a board resolution.29 It is likewise his conclusion that
the element of taking was not adequately established as
petitioner and her helper were not able to see the taking of
anything of value. If at all there was taking, the Secretary
concluded that it was made under a claim of ownership.30
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June
17, 2004.31
_______________
23 Id., at p. 163.
24 Id., at p. 186.
25 Embodied in a Resolution dated September 24, 2003.
27 Id., at p. 192.
28 Id.
29 Id., at p. 190.
30 Id., at pp. 188-189.
31 Id., at pp. 196-197.
446

Sy vs. Gutierrez
Aggrieved, petitioner went up to the Court of Appeals

(CA) in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court. On December 20, 2004, the CA
rendered a Decision32 granting the petition and,
consequently, setting aside the assailed Secretary’s
Resolutions and reinstating the OCP’s Resolution with the
directive that the Information be amended to reflect the
facts as alleged in the complaint that the robbery was
committed in an inhabited place and that it was committed
through force upon things.33
The CA held that petitioner had sufficiently shown that
the Secretary gravely abused her discretion in reversing
the OCP’s decision.34 While recognizing the mistake in the
designation of the offense committed because it should
have been robbery in an inhabited place, the CA held that
the mistake can be remedied by the amendment of the
Information.35 Indeed, since the element of violence against
or intimidation of persons was not established, the same
was immaterial as the crime was allegedly committed with
force upon things.36 Thus, it held that petitioner
adequately showed that at the time of the commission of
the offense, she was in possession of the subject residential
unit and that respondents should not have taken the law
into their own hands if they indeed had claims over the
personal properties inside the subject unit.37 It also did not
give credence to the newly-discovered evidence presented
by respondents, because the affidavit was executed two
years after the filing of petitioner’s complaint.38 Lastly,
_______________
32 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate
Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; id., at
pp. 138-165.
34 Rollo, pp. 147-148.
35 Id., at p. 148.
36 Id., at pp. 149-150.
37 Id., at pp. 151-152.
38 Id., at p. 152.
447
VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 447

Sy vs. Gutierrez
the CA held that the element of taking was shown with

circumstantial evidence.39
On motion of respondents, the CA rendered an Amended
Decision40 dated May 9, 2005, setting aside its earlier
decision and reinstating the DOJ Secretaries’
Resolutions.41 It concluded that as part-owner of the entire
building and of the articles allegedly stolen from the
subject residential unit, the very same properties involved
in the pending estate proceedings, respondents cannot, as
co-owners, steal what they claim to own and thus cannot be
charged with robbery.42 It continued and held that
assuming that the door was forced open, the same cannot
be construed as an element of robbery as such was
necessary due to petitioner’s unjustified refusal to allow the
other co-owners to gain access to the premises even for the
lawful purpose of allowing prospective buyers to have a
look at the building.43 Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied in the assailed Resolution44
dated February 10, 2006.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
GRIEVOUS ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT A CORPORATION
MAY ARBITRARILY TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN
HANDS BY MEANS OF A MERE BOARD RESOLUTION.
_______________
39 Id., at pp. 153-154.
40 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Roberto A.
Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; id., at pp. 159-165.
41 Rollo, p. 165.
42 Id., at p. 163.
43 Id., at p. 164.
44 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza
and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring, id., at pp. 51-57.
448

Sy vs. Gutierrez
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

GRIEVOUS ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONER
WAS NO LONGER IN POSSESSION OF THE UNIT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE PETITIONER WAS IN POSSESSION OF
ANOTHER UNIT.45
We find no merit in the petition.

At the outset, a perusal of the records of Criminal Case
No. 02-199574 in People of the Philippines v. Benito
Fernandez Go, et al., pending before the RTC where the

Information for Robbery was filed, would show that on
March 12, 2008, Presiding Judge Zenaida R. Daguna issued
an Order46 granting the Motion to Withdraw Information
filed by ACP Armando C. Velasco. The withdrawal of the
information was based on the alleged failure of petitioner
to take action on the Amended Decision issued by the CA
which, in effect, reversed and set aside the finding of
probable cause, and in order for the case not to appear
pending in the docket of the court. The propriety of the
determination of probable cause is, however, the subject of
this present petition. Besides, in allowing the withdrawal
of the information, the RTC in fact did not make a
determination of the existence of probable cause. Thus, the
withdrawal of the information does not bar the Court from
making a final determination of whether or not probable
cause exists to warrant the filing of an Information for
Robbery against respondents in order to write finis to the
issue elevated before us.47
From the time the complaint was first lodged with the
OCP, the latter, the Secretary of Justice and the CA had
been in disagreement as to the existence or absence of
probable cause sufficient to indict respondents of the
offense charged. After a thorough review of the records of
the case, we find no
_______________
45 Rollo, p. 38.
46 RTC records, Vol. II, p. 000255.
47 See Torres, Jr. v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, June 28, 2005, 461
SCRA 599.
449
VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 449

Sy vs. Gutierrez
reason to depart from the CA conclusion that the evidence

presented was not sufficient to support a finding of
probable cause.
Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that the respondents are probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.48 There is no definitive
standard by which probable cause is determined except to
consider the attendant conditions.49
Respondents were charged with robbery in an

uninhabited place, which was later amended to reflect the
facts as alleged in the complaint that the robbery was
committed in an inhabited place and that it was committed
through force upon things.50
“Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of
violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything, is guilty of robbery.”51 To constitute
robbery, the following elements must be established:
(1) The subject is personal property belonging to another;

(2) There is unlawful taking of that property;
(3) The taking is with the intent to gain; and
(4) There is violence against or intimidation of any person or use of
force upon things.52
_______________
48 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), represented by
Rosella A. Santiago v. Antonino O. Tobias III, G.R. No. 177780, January
25, 2012, 664 SCRA 165.
49 Id.
51 Bernal v. Court of Appeals, 247-A Phil. 92, 97; 165 SCRA 18, 23
(1988).
52 De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 166502, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA
452, 457.
450

Sy vs. Gutierrez
Admittedly, the subject 10th floor unit is owned by the

corporation and served as the family residence prior to the
death of petitioner and respondents’ parents. The 10th floor
unit, including the personal properties inside, is the subject
of estate proceedings pending in another court and is,
therefore, involved in the disputed claims among the
siblings (petitioner and respondents). Respondents
admitted that armed with a Board Resolution authorizing
them to break open the door lock system of said unit and to
install a new door lock system, they went up to the subject
unit to implement said resolution. The said corporate
action was arrived at because petitioner had allegedly
prevented prospective buyers from conducting ocular
inspection.
Petitioner, however, claims that on December 16, 1999

and sometime in January 2000, respondents brought out
from the unit 34 boxes containing her personal belongings
worth more than P10 million. We cannot, however, fathom
why petitioner did not immediately report the first incident
and waited for yet another incident after more or less one
month. If the value involved is what she claims to be, it is
contrary to human nature to just keep silent and not
immediately protect her right. Her general statement that
she was intimidated by Benito who was known to be
capable of inflicting bodily harm cannot excuse her
inaction. Petitioner, therefore, failed to establish that there
was unlawful taking.
Assuming that respondents indeed took said boxes
containing personal belongings, said properties were taken
under claim of ownership which negates the element of
intent to gain.
x x x Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which

can be established through the overt acts of the offender. The
unlawful taking of another’s property gives rise to the
presumption that the act was committed with intent to gain. This
presumption holds
451
VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 451

Sy vs. Gutierrez
unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part

of the perpetrator x x x.53
Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the

offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the
character of permanency. The taking should not be under a
claim of ownership. Thus, one who takes the property
openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good
faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of
ownership is untenable.54 The intent to gain cannot be
established by direct evidence being an internal act. It
must, therefore, be deduced from the circumstances
surrounding the commission of the offense.55
In this case, it was shown that respondents believed in
good faith that they and the corporation own not only the
subject unit but also the properties found inside. If at all,
they took them openly and avowedly under that claim of
ownership.56 This is bolstered by the fact that at the time of
the alleged incident, petitioner had been staying in another
unit because the electric service in the 10th floor was
disconnected. We quote with approval the CA conclusion in

their Amended Decision, thus:
Indeed, on second look, We note that what is involved here is a

dispute between and among members of a family corporation, the
Fortune Wealth Mansion Corporation. [Petitioner] Lily Sy and
[respondents] Merry, Jennifer, and Glenn, all surnamed Sy, are
the owners-incorporators of said corporation, which owns and
manages the Fortune Wealth Mansion where [petitioner]
allegedly resided and where the crime of robbery was allegedly
committed. As part-owners of the entire building and of the
articles allegedly stolen from the 10th floor of said building … the
very same properties that are involved between the same parties
in a pending estate proceeding, the [respondents] cannot, as co-
owners, be therefore charged with
_______________
53 Id., at p. 457.
54 Bernal v. Court of Appeals, supra note 51; United States v. Manluco, 28 Phil.
360, 361 (1914).
55 Bernal v. Court of Appeals, supra note 51, at p. 98; p. 23.
56 United States v. Manluco, supra note 51, p. 361.
452

Sy vs. Gutierrez
robbery. The fact of co-ownership negates any intention to gain,

as they cannot steal properties which they claim to own.
Hence, even if we are to assume that private respondents took
the said personal properties from the 10th floor of the Fortune
Wealth Mansion, they cannot be charged with robbery because
again, the taking was made under a claim of ownership x x x57
Respondents should not be held liable for the alleged

unlawful act absent a felonious intent. “Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. A crime is not committed if the
mind of the person performing the act complained of is
innocent.”58
The Court adheres to the view that a preliminary investigation

serves not only the purposes of the State, but more importantly, it
is a significant part of freedom and fair play which every
individual is entitled to. It is thus the duty of the prosecutor or
the judge, as the case may be, to relieve the accused of going
through a trial once it is determined that there is no sufficient
evidence to sustain a finding of probable cause to form a sufficient
belief that the accused has committed a crime. In this case, absent
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution

of respondents for the crime of robbery, the filing of information
against respondents constitute grave abuse of discretion.59
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Brion,** Abad and Perez,***

JJ., concur.
_______________
57 Rollo, pp. 162-163.
58 De Guzman v. People, supra note 52, at p. 458.
59 Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Mendoza, 494 Phil. 391, 416; 454
SCRA 386, 414 (2005).
** Designated Acting Member, in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral
Mendoza, per Raffle dated January 26, 2012.
*** Designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1299 dated
August 28, 2012.
453
VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 453

Sy vs. Gutierrez
Petition denied.
Notes.―In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or

apoderamiento, which is defined as the taking of items
without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things; Taking is considered complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. (Sazon vs.
Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division], 578 SCRA 211 [2009])
In robbery with violence and intimidation against
persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of
robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity
of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house.
(People vs. Evangelio, 656 SCRA 579 [2011])
――o0o――
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

119 Sy v. Secretary of Justice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

119 Sy v. Secretary of Justice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 685

G.R. No. 171579. November 14, 2012.*

LILY SY, petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Probable Cause; Probable

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

not be under a claim of ownership. Thus, one who takes the

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 443

In the evening of the same date, petitioner supposedly

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

those of the corporation in their former residence.13 They

VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 445

nal Case No. 02-199574 and was raffled to Branch 19. On

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aggrieved, petitioner went up to the Court of Appeals

VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 447

the CA held that the element of taking was shown with

39 Id., at pp. 153-154.

Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; id., at pp. 159-165.

and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring, id., at pp. 51-57.

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A

We find no merit in the petition.

Fernandez Go, et al., pending before the RTC where the

VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 449

reason to depart from the CA conclusion that the evidence

Respondents were charged with robbery in an

(1) The subject is personal property belonging to another;

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Admittedly, the subject 10th floor unit is owned by the

Petitioner, however, claims that on December 16, 1999

x x x Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which

VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 451

unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part

Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the

disconnected. We quote with approval the CA conclusion in

Indeed, on second look, We note that what is involved here is a

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

robbery. The fact of co-ownership negates any intention to gain,

Respondents should not be held liable for the alleged

The Court adheres to the view that a preliminary investigation

sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the prosecution

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Brion,** Abad and Perez,***

VOL. 685, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 453

Notes.―In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Brion, Abad and Perez,*