View full case

RYAN VIRAY v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari to reverse and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case No. 66-07. The petitioner, Ryan Viray, was charged with qualified theft for stealing various items from Zenaida Vedua's house.

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Viray, who worked as a dog caretaker for Vedua, was seen at her house on the day of the incident and was later seen leaving with a big sack. Vedua discovered that several valuable items, including jewelry and electronics, were missing from her house. She also found a plastic bag containing Viray's clothes near her stereo. Witnesses testified to seeing Viray at Vedua's house during the time of the theft.

On the other hand, Viray claimed that he did not report for work on the day of the incident as he was sick. The trial court found Viray guilty of robbery, while the Court of Appeals modified the ruling to qualify theft. Aggrieved, Viray filed a petition for review asserting that the CA committed errors in finding him guilty.

The People of the Philippines argued that the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were insignificant and did not affect their credibility. The Supreme Court, as a rule, is not a trier of facts.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the crime committed by the petitioner is qualified theft through grave abuse of confidence.

  2. Whether the breaking of the door constitutes grave abuse of confidence.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner committed qualified theft.

  4. Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.

  5. Whether or not reparation of the stolen property should be awarded.

  6. Whether or not the petition was filed within the reglementary period.

  7. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the judgment debtor's car be levied and sold to satisfy the judgment debt.

  8. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion to quash the writ of execution.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the crime committed by the petitioner is qualified theft through grave abuse of confidence. The elements of qualified theft, specifically grave abuse of confidence, are present in this case. The prosecution has proven the first four elements of qualified theft beyond reasonable doubt. The personal properties were taken without the owner's consent, with intent to gain, and without the use of violence or intimidation. The properties belonged to the private complainant. Furthermore, the petitioner was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene carrying a heavy-looking sack, which creates a reasonable conclusion that he took the personal properties.

  2. No, the breaking of the door does not constitute grave abuse of confidence. The breaking of the door was not alleged in the information and, therefore, cannot be considered as a qualifying element. While the breaking of the door may indicate the petitioner's abuse of the confidence given by the private complainant, it does not satisfy the element of grave abuse of confidence as required for qualified theft.

  3. No, the petitioner did not commit qualified theft. The Court held that there was no high degree of confidence between the offended party and the petitioner that facilitated the theft. The fact that the petitioner forced open the main door and screen of the house because he was denied access negates the presence of confidence. Without physical access or material possession of the stolen goods, it cannot be said that the petitioner exploited such access or material possession to commit qualified theft.

  4. The penalty imposed is incorrect. The Court held that the petitioner should be held accountable for the crime of simple theft instead of qualified theft. The Court imposed the penalty of imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to three (3) months of arresto mayor.

  5. Reparation of the stolen property should not be awarded. The Court held that the private complainant's testimony was not sufficient to establish the value of the stolen property. Without convincing proof of the value, the court cannot award reparation.

  6. The petition was filed within the reglementary period. The Court ruled that the belated filing of the petition was due to excusable negligence on the part of the petitioner, as there was reasonable basis to believe that the appeal was filed on time, considering that it was actually received by the appellate court within the appeal period allowed by law.

  7. The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that the judgment debtor's car be levied and sold to satisfy the judgment debt. The Court held that the properties of the judgment debtor shall be liable for the satisfaction of the judgment, and that the car constituted part of the judgment debtor's assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment debt.

  8. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the motion to quash the writ of execution. The Court held that the motion to quash lacked legal basis and did not provide any valid ground for the quashing of the writ of execution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The factual findings of the trial court, when sustained by the appellate court, are binding unless there is a misapprehension of facts that could change the outcome of the case.

  • The elements of qualified theft through grave abuse of confidence are: taking of personal property; the property belongs to another; taking is done with intent to gain without the owner's consent; taking is accomplished without the use of violence, intimidation, or force upon things; and the taking is done with grave abuse of confidence.

  • Breaking a door, if not alleged in the information, cannot be considered as a qualifying element for the crime of qualified theft through grave abuse of confidence.

  • To warrant the conviction and imposition of the penalty for qualified theft, there must be a high degree of confidence between the offended party and the accused, or the stolen goods must have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused.

  • If the accused had never been vested physical access or material possession of the stolen goods, it cannot be said that the accused exploited such access or possession and committed grave abuse of confidence in taking the property.

  • The allegation that the offender is a laborer of the offended party does not create the relation of confidence and intimacy required for the imposition of the penalty for qualified theft.

  • If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or the prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding penalty to be imposed should be the minimum penalty for theft involving the value of P5.00.

  • Reparation for stolen goods can only be awarded if the pecuniary loss suffered by the offended party has been duly proved.

  • The belated filing of a petition may be excused if there is reasonable basis to believe that the appeal was filed on time and the delay was due to excusable negligence.

  • The properties of the judgment debtor shall be liable for the satisfaction of the judgment.

  • A motion to quash a writ of execution must be grounded on valid legal reasons.