G.R. No.

171579 November 14, 2012 the corporation allegedly tolerated petitioner to

continuously occupy said unit while they, in turn,
LILY SY, Petitioner, stayed in the other vacant units leaving some of their
vs. properties and those of the corporation in their former
HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MA. residence.13 They further stated that petitioner
MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, BENITO transferred to the ground floor because the 10th floor’s
FERNANDEZ GO, BERTHOLD LIM, JENNIFER electric service was disconnected.14They explained
SY, GLENN BEN TIAK SY and MERRY that they changed the unit’s door lock to protect their
SY, Respondents. personal belongings and those of the corporation as
petitioner had initially changed the original lock.15 They
DECISION supported their authority to do so with a board
resolution duly issued by the directors. They
questioned petitioner’s failure to report the alleged
PERALTA, J.:
incident to the police, considering that they
supposedly witnessed the unlawful taking.16 They thus
In a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed on August 7, 2000, contended that petitioner’s accusations are based on
petitioner Lily Sy (petitioner) claimed that in the illusions and wild imaginations, aggravated by her ill
morning of December 16, 1999, respondents Benito motive, greed for money and indiscriminate
Fernandez Go (Benito) and Glenn Ben Tiak Sy prosecution.17
(Glenn), together with "Elmo," a security guard of
Hawk Security Agency, went to petitioner's
In the Resolution18 dated September 28, 2001,
residence at the 1oth Floor, Fortune Wealth, 612
Assistant City Prosecutor Jovencio T. Tating (ACP
Elcano St., Binondo, Manila and forcibly opened the
Tating) recommended that respondents Benito,
door, destroyed and dismantled the door lock then
Berthold, Jennifer, Glenn and Merry be charged with
replaced it with a new one, without petitioner's
Robbery In An Uninhabited Place; and that the
consent.2 She, likewise, declared that as a
charges against William Go19 (the alleged new owner
diversionary ruse, respondent Jennifer Sy (Jennifer)
of the building), and "Elmo Hubio" be dismissed for
was at the lobby of the same building who informed
insufficiency of evidence.20 ACP Tating found that the
petitioner’s helper Geralyn Juanites (Geralyn) that
subject condominium unit is in fact petitioner’s
the elevator was not working.3 Glenn and Benito’s
residence and that respondents indeed took the
act of replacing the door lock appeared to be
former’s personal belongings with intent to gain and
authorized by a resolution of Fortune Wealth
without petitioner’s consent. He further held that
Mansion Corporation’s Board of Directors, namely,
respondents’ defenses are not only contradictory but
respondents Glenn, Jennifer, William Sy (William),
evidentiary in nature.21 The corresponding
Merlyn Sy (Merlyn), and Merry Sy (Merry).4
Information was filed before the RTC of Manila,
22

docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-199574 and was

In the evening of the same date, petitioner raffled to Branch 19. On motion of Jennifer, Glenn
supposedly saw Benito, Glenn, Jennifer, Merry and and Merry, the RTC ordered a reinvestigation on the
respondent Berthold Lim (Berthold) took from her ground of newly-discovered evidence consisting of
residence numerous boxes containing her personal an affidavit of the witness.23 This notwithstanding, the
belongings without her consent and, with intent to Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) sustained in a
gain, load them inside a family-owned van/truck Resolution24 dated September 23, 2002 its earlier
named "Wheels in Motion."5 The same incident conclusion and recommended the denial of
supposedly happened in January 2000 and the respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
"stolen" boxes allegedly reached 34,6 the contents of
which were valued at P10,244,196.00.7
When elevated before the Secretary of Justice, then
Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong (the Secretary)
Respondents Benito and Berthold denied the reversed and set aside25 the ACP’s conclusions and
accusations against them. They explained that the latter was directed to move for the withdrawal of
petitioner made the baseless charges simply the Information against respondents.26 The Secretary
because she hated their wives Merry and Jennifer stressed that the claimed residence of petitioner is
due to irreconcilable personal differences on how to not an uninhabited place under the penal laws,
go about the estates of their deceased parents then considering her allegation that it is her
pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of residence.27 Neither can it be considered uninhabited
Manila, Branch 51.8 They also manifested their under Article 300 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
doubts on petitioner’s capability to acquire the since it is located in a populous place.28 The
personal belongings allegedly stolen by them.9 Secretary opined that the elements of robbery were
not present, since there was no violence against or
Merry, Glenn, and Jennifer, on the other hand, intimidation of persons, or force upon things, as the
claimed that petitioner’s accusations were brought replacement of the door lock was authorized by a
about by the worsening state of their personal board resolution.29 It is likewise his conclusion that the
relationship because of misunderstanding on how to element of taking was not adequately established as
divide the estate of their deceased father.10 They also petitioner and her helper were not able to see the
pointed out that the whole condominium building taking of anything of value. If at all there was taking,
where the alleged residence of petitioner is located, is the Secretary concluded that it was made under a
owned and registered in the name of the claim of ownership.30 Petitioner’s motion for
corporation.11 They explained that the claimed reconsideration was denied on June 17, 2004.31
residence was actually the former residence of their
family (including petitioner).12 After their parents’ death,

1|Page
Aggrieved, petitioner went up to the Court of ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT THE
Appeals (CA) in a special civil action for certiorari PETITIONER WAS NO LONGER IN
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. On December POSSESSION OF THE UNIT SIMPLY
20, 2004, the CA rendered a Decision32 granting the BECAUSE THE PETITIONER WAS IN
petition and, consequently, setting aside the POSSESSION OF ANOTHER UNIT.45
assailed Secretary’s Resolutions and reinstating the
OCP’s Resolution with the directive that the We find no merit in the petition.
Information be amended to reflect the facts as
alleged in the complaint that the robbery was At the outset, a perusal of the records of Criminal
committed in an inhabited place and that it was Case No. 02-199574 in People of the Philippines v.
committed through force upon things.33 Benito Fernandez Go, et al., pending before the
RTC where the Information for Robbery was filed,
The CA held that petitioner had sufficiently shown would show that on March 12, 2008, Presiding
that the Secretary gravely abused her discretion in Judge Zenaida R. Daguna issued an Order46 granting
reversing the OCP’s decision.34 While recognizing the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by ACP
the mistake in the designation of the offense Armando C. Velasco. The withdrawal of the
committed because it should have been robbery in information was based on the alleged failure of
an inhabited place, the CA held that the mistake can petitioner to take action on the Amended Decision
be remedied by the amendment of the issued by the CA which, in effect, reversed and set
Information.35 Indeed, since the element of violence aside the finding of probable cause, and in order for
against or intimidation of persons was not the case not to appear pending in the docket of the
established, the same was immaterial as the crime court. The propriety of the determination of probable
was allegedly committed with force upon cause is, however, the subject of this present
things.36 Thus, it held that petitioner adequately petition. Besides, in allowing the withdrawal of the
showed that at the time of the commission of the information, the RTC in fact did not make a
offense, she was in possession of the subject determination of the existence of probable cause.
residential unit and that respondents should not Thus, the withdrawal of the information does not bar
have taken the law into their own hands if they the Court from making a final determination of
indeed had claims over the personal properties whether or not probable cause exists to warrant the
inside the subject unit.37 It also did not give credence filing of an Information for Robbery against
to the newly-discovered evidence presented by respondents in order to write finis to the issue
respondents, because the affidavit was executed elevated before us.47
two years after the filing of petitioner’s
complaint.38 Lastly, the CA held that the element of From the time the complaint was first lodged with
taking was shown with circumstantial evidence.39 the OCP, the latter, the Secretary of Justice and the
CA had been in disagreement as to the existence or
On motion of respondents, the CA rendered an absence of probable cause sufficient to indict
Amended Decision40 dated May 9, 2005, setting respondents of the offense charged. After a
aside its earlier decision and reinstating the DOJ thorough review of the records of the case, we find
Secretaries’ Resolutions.41 It concluded that as part- no reason to depart from the CA conclusion that the
owner of the entire building and of the articles evidence presented was not sufficient to support a
allegedly stolen from the subject residential unit, the finding of probable cause.
very same properties involved in the pending estate
proceedings, respondents cannot, as co-owners, Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances
steal what they claim to own and thus cannot be that engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
charged with robbery.42 It continued and held that been committed and that the respondents are
assuming that the door was forced open, the same probably guilty thereof and should be held for
cannot be construed as an element of robbery as trial.48 There is no definitive standard by which
such was necessary due to petitioner’s unjustified probable cause is determined except to consider the
refusal to allow the other co-owners to gain access attendant conditions.49
to the premises even for the lawful purpose of
allowing prospective buyers to have a look at the
Respondents were charged with robbery in an
building.43
uninhabited place, which was later amended to
reflect the facts as alleged in the complaint that the
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in robbery was committed in an inhabited place and
the assailed Resolution44 dated February 10, 2006. that it was committed through force upon things.50

Hence, this petition raising the following issues: "Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS violence against or intimidation of any person, or
COMMITTED A GRIEVOUS ERROR WHEN using force upon anything, is guilty of robbery."51 To
IT RULED THAT A CORPORATION MAY constitute robbery, the following elements must be
ARBITRARILY TAKE THE LAW INTO established:
THEIR OWN HANDS BY MEANS OF A
MERE BOARD RESOLUTION. (1) The subject is personal property
belonging to another;
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED A GRIEVOUS (2) There is unlawful taking of that property;

2|Page
 (3) The taking is with the intent to gain; and petitioner had been staying in another unit because
the electric service in the 10th floor was
(4) There is violence against or intimidation disconnected. We quote with approval the CA
of any person or use of force upon things.52 conclusion in their Amended Decision, thus:

Admittedly, the subject 10th floor unit is owned by Indeed, on second look, We note that what is
the corporation and served as the family residence involved here is a dispute between and among
prior to the death of petitioner and respondents’ members of a family corporation, the Fortune
parents. The 10th floor unit, including the personal Wealth Mansion Corporation. Petitioner Lily Sy and
properties inside, is the subject of estate respondents Merry, Jennifer, and Glenn, all
proceedings pending in another court and is, surnamed Sy, are the owners-incorporators of said
therefore, involved in the disputed claims among the corporation, which owns and manages the Fortune
siblings (petitioner and respondents). Respondents Wealth Mansion where petitioner allegedly resided
admitted that armed with a Board Resolution and where the crime of robbery was allegedly
authorizing them to break open the door lock system committed. As part-owners of the entire building and
of said unit and to install a new door lock system, of the articles allegedly stolen from the 10th floor of
they went up to the subject unit to implement said said building … the very same properties that are
resolution. The said corporate action was arrived at involved between the same parties in a pending
because petitioner had allegedly prevented estate proceeding, the respondents cannot, as co-
prospective buyers from conducting ocular owners, be therefore charged with robbery. The fact
inspection. of co-ownership negates any intention to gain, as
they cannot steal properties which they claim to
Petitioner, however, claims that on December 16, own.
1999 and sometime in January 2000, respondents
brought out from the unit 34 boxes containing her Hence, even if we are to assume that private
personal belongings worth more than P10 million. respondents took the said personal properties from
We cannot, however, fathom why petitioner did not the 10th floor of the Fortune Wealth Mansion, they
immediately report the first incident and waited for cannot be charged with robbery because again, the
yet another incident after more or less one month. If taking was made under a claim of ownership x x x57
the value involved is what she claims to be, it is
contrary to human nature to just keep silent and not Respondents should not be held liable for the
immediately protect her right. Her general statement alleged unlawful act absent a felonious
that she was intimidated by Benito who was known intent. "Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. A
1âwphi1

to be capable of inflicting bodily harm cannot excuse crime is not committed if the mind of the person
her inaction. Petitioner, therefore, failed to establish performing the act complained of is 58innocent.
that there was unlawful taking.
The Court adheres to the view that a preliminary
Assuming that respondents indeed took said boxes investigation serves not only the purposes of the
containing personal belongings, said properties State, but more importantly, it is a significant part of
were taken under claim of ownership which negates freedom and fair play which every individual is
the element of intent to gain. entitled to. It is thus the duty of the prosecutor or the
judge, as the case may be, to relieve the accused of
x x x Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal going through a trial once it is determined that there
act which can be established through the overt acts is no sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of
of the offender. The unlawful taking of another’s probable cause to form a sufficient belief that the
property gives rise to the presumption that the act accused has committed a crime. In this case, absent
was committed with intent to gain. This presumption sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for
holds unless special circumstances reveal a the prosecution of respondents for the crime of
different intent on the part of the perpetrator x x x.53 robbery, the filing of information against
respondents constitute grave abuse of discretion.59
Taking as an element of robbery means depriving
the offended party of ownership of the thing taken WHEREFORE,- premises considered, the petition is
with the character of permanency. The taking should hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
not be under a claim of ownership. Thus, one who
takes the property openly and avowedly under claim SO ORDERED.
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,

3|Page