View full case

JOEL YONGCO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in relation to Rule 125 of the Rules of Court, are filed by Joel Yongco, Julieto Lañojan, and Anecito Tangian, Jr., assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00549-MIN. The said rulings affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision convicting the petitioners of qualified theft. The petitioners were employees of the City Government of Iligan, with Tangian working as a garbage truck driver, and Yongco and Lañojan as security guards assigned to protect the premises of the City Engineer's Office (CEO). On November 14, 2005, an Information was filed before the RTC charging the petitioners with qualified theft. The information alleges that the petitioners, with grave abuse of confidence and with intent to gain, took, stole, and carried away certain articles belonging to the City government of Iligan. During the arraignment, the petitioners pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. The prosecution's version of the events is that the petitioners conspired to steal car parts, loaded them onto the garbage truck driven by Tangian, and unloaded them at a junk store. Witnesses testified to witnessing the unloading of the items and the subsequent taking of the items inside the shop by Lañojan's brother-in-law. On the other hand, the defense's version of the events is that the petitioners were authorized to load and transport scrap materials to the dump site. Tangian allegedly drove the dump truck onto the CEO premises and gathered the scrap materials with the help of the petitioners. After loading, Tangian drove away without giving a gate pass to the guards on duty. Lañojan testified that he was not on duty on the date of the alleged theft and that he gave the four gate passes to Yongco and Quintana when they relieved him from duty.

The case involves the petitioners, namely Julieto Lañojan, Anecito Tangian Jr., and Joel Yongco, who were charged with qualified theft. Lañojan worked as a security guard at the City Engineer's Office (CEO), while Tangian was a garbage truck driver at the same office. Yongco was a helper at the CEO.

On April 15, 2005, Lañojan instructed Tangian to load scrap materials onto the garbage truck and bring them to the Delfin Junk Store in Tominobo. Lañojan explained that the CEO area needed to be cleared because new trucks for the government were coming. Tangian followed Lañojan's instruction and, with the assistance of Yongco and another helper, loaded the items onto the truck. After dropping by Cosmo Funeral Homes for more than an hour, they proceeded to the junk store.

Upon reaching the junk store, Lañojan gave a thumbs-up sign to Tangian, indicating that everything was okay. Tangian then left to start his work collecting garbage.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioners guilty of qualified theft via conspiracy. The RTC sentenced them to imprisonment based on the court's decision. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that there was no conspiracy and that they should not be held liable for the theft.

The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that there indeed existed a conspiracy among the petitioners. The CA found it implausible that Tangian could have taken the items without a gate pass, but with Yongco's participation, they were able to do so. The CA also considered the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which indicated that Lañojan's presence and actions were not coincidental and that he was involved in the plan to steal the items.

The main issue in the case is whether the CA erred in sustaining the petitioners' conviction. The determination of whether there was conspiracy among the petitioners is central to resolving this issue.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether all the elements of Qualified Theft are present in this case.

  2. Whether there is conspiracy among the accused.

  3. Whether or not the petitioners are liable for qualified theft.

  4. Whether or not there was conspiracy among the petitioners.

RULING:

  1. Yes, all the elements of Qualified Theft are present in this case. The court found that the stolen items belonged to the CEO of Iligan City and were taken without the owner's consent. The taking was done with the intent to gain, without violence or intimidation, and with grave abuse of confidence.

  2. Yes, there is conspiracy among the accused. The court ruled that direct proof of a prior agreement is not necessary to establish conspiracy. In this case, the separate acts of the accused were connected and complemented each other, indicating a unity of criminal design and purpose.

  3. The Supreme Court denied the consolidated petitions for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the findings of the appellate court, which upheld the decision of the trial court that the petitioners are guilty of qualified theft. The Court found that the petitioners were in conspiracy to steal items from the CEO premises under the pretext of disposing unserviceable waste materials. It was established that Lañojan instigated and orchestrated the scheme, while Yongco and Tangian actively participated in executing the plan. The Court held that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals. Therefore, even though Lañojan did not physically participate in hauling the items or bringing them to the junk shop, he was still liable for qualified theft.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Qualified Theft requires the presence of all the elements enumerated in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Conspiracy can be established through the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, and can be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, or after the commission of the crime.

  • In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Once conspiracy is established, all the conspirators are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.

  • The guilt of one is the guilt of all. It is the common design which is the essence of conspiracy, and conspirators may act separately or together in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result.