View full case

LILY SY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ

FACTS:

Petitioner Lily Sy filed a complaint against respondents Benito Fernandez Go, Glenn Ben Tiak Sy, and others for allegedly forcibly entering her residence and replacing the door lock without her consent. Petitioner claimed that on the same day, respondents took numerous boxes containing her personal belongings from her residence without her consent and loaded them into a family-owned van/truck. Petitioner alleged that a total of 34 boxes, valued at P10,244,196.00, were stolen from her.

Respondents denied the accusations and claimed that petitioner made baseless charges due to personal differences regarding the estates of their deceased parents. They argued that the condominium building where petitioner's alleged residence was located was owned by a corporation and that petitioner was allowed to occupy the unit while they stayed in other vacant units. Respondents stated that they changed the unit's door lock to protect their personal belongings and those of the corporation. They also questioned petitioner's failure to report the alleged incident to the police.

Assistant City Prosecutor Jovencio T. Tating recommended that respondents be charged with robbery in an uninhabited place, while the charges against other respondents were dismissed. The RTC ordered a reinvestigation based on newly-discovered evidence presented by respondents, but the Office of the City Prosecutor maintained its earlier conclusion.

The Secretary of Justice reversed the ACP's conclusions and directed the withdrawal of the information against respondents. The Secretary reasoned that the claimed residence of petitioner was not an uninhabited place under the penal laws and that the element of taking was not adequately established. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially granted her petition and reinstated the OCP's resolution. However, on motion of respondents, the CA issued an amended decision and reinstated the DOJ Secretaries' resolutions, concluding that petitioner failed to establish the element of taking.

(Note: Facts will be continued in a subsequent partial digest.)

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a corporation may take the law into their own hands by means of a mere board resolution.

  2. Whether the petitioner was no longer in possession of the unit simply because she was in possession of another unit.

  3. Whether or not the respondents can be held liable for robbery considering that the taking of the personal properties was done under a claim of ownership.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. They upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reinstated the Department of Justice Secretaries' Resolutions denying the existence of probable cause to charge the respondents with robbery. The withdrawal of the information by the RTC did not bar the court from making a final determination of probable cause. After a thorough review of the records, the Court agreed with the CA's conclusion that the evidence presented was not sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.

  2. The respondents cannot be held liable for robbery because the taking of the personal properties was done under a claim of ownership. The Court held that the intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery, cannot be established when the taking is done openly and avowedly under a claim of title offered in good faith. In this case, it was shown that the respondents believed in good faith that they and the corporation own the subject unit and the properties found inside. The Court further explained that the fact of co-ownership negates any intention to gain, as the respondents cannot be charged with stealing properties which they claim to own. Therefore, the petition was denied and the filing of information against respondents for the crime of robbery was considered as grave abuse of discretion.

PRINCIPLES:

  • 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. It is determined by considering the attendant conditions.

  • 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.

  • 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, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.

  • Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the character of permanency.

  • 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.