Sy vs. Secretary of Justice

Probable cause for robbery is absent where the evidence does not establish unlawful taking and intent to gain, and where the accused take property openly under a claim of ownership, especially as co-owners disputing properties in an estate.

Petitioner Lily Sy and respondents Merry, Jennifer, and Glenn, all surnamed Sy, are owners-incorporators of Fortune Wealth Mansion Corporation, which owns and manages the Fortune Wealth Mansion. The 10th-floor unit involved had been the family residence before the death of their parents, and the unit and personal properties inside were the subject of pending estate proceedings among the siblings. The legal setting is the Revised Penal Code’s definition of robbery and the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation.

On December 16, 1999, petitioner Lily Sy alleged that respondents Benito Fernandez Go and Glenn Ben Tiak Sy, together with Elmo, a security guard of Hawk Security Agency, went to her residence at the 10th Floor, Fortune Wealth, 612 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila, forcibly opened the door, destroyed and dismantled the door lock, and replaced it with a new one without her consent. She also alleged that, as a diversionary ruse, respondent Jennifer Sy was at the lobby of the same building and told petitioner’s helper Geralyn Juanites that the elevator was not working. The replacement of 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, Merlyn Sy, and Merry Sy. In the evening of the same date, petitioner supposedly saw Benito, Glenn, Jennifer, Merry, and respondent Berthold Lim take numerous boxes containing her personal belongings from her residence without her consent and, with intent to gain, load them inside a family-owned van/truck named “Wheels in Motion.” The same incident supposedly happened in January 2000, and the “stolen” boxes allegedly reached 34, with contents valued at P10,244,196.00.

Respondents Benito and Berthold denied the accusations. They explained that petitioner made the baseless charges 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 RTC of Manila, Branch 51, and they doubted petitioner’s capability to acquire the personal belongings allegedly stolen. Merry, Glenn, and Jennifer 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. They 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, and that the claimed residence was actually the former residence of their family, including petitioner. After their parents’ death, the corporation allegedly tolerated petitioner to continuously occupy the unit while they stayed in the other vacant units, leaving some of their properties and those of the corporation in their former residence. Petitioner transferred to the ground floor because the 10th floor’s electric service was disconnected. They explained that they changed the unit’s door lock to protect their personal belongings and those of the corporation because petitioner had initially changed the original lock, and they supported their authority with a board resolution duly issued by the directors. They questioned petitioner’s failure to report the alleged incident to the police, considering that petitioner supposedly witnessed the unlawful taking, and contended that her accusations were based on illusions and wild imaginations, aggravated by ill motive, greed for money, and indiscriminate prosecution.

The 10th floor unit is owned by the corporation and served as the family residence prior to the death of petitioner and respondents’ parents. The unit, including the personal properties inside, is the subject of estate proceedings pending in another court and is involved in the disputed claims among the siblings. Respondents admitted that, armed with a Board Resolution authorizing them to break open the door lock system of the unit and to install a new door lock system, they went up to the subject unit to implement the resolution; the corporate action was arrived at because petitioner had allegedly prevented prospective buyers from conducting ocular inspection. Petitioner claimed 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. The records show that petitioner did not immediately report the first incident and waited for yet another incident after more or less one month; she attributed her inaction to intimidation by Benito, whom she described as known to be capable of inflicting bodily harm. At the time of the alleged incident, petitioner had been staying in another unit because the electric service in the 10th floor was disconnected.

Respondents believed in good faith that they and the corporation owned not only the subject unit but also the properties found inside, and they took them openly and avowedly under that claim of ownership. The personal properties allegedly taken were the same properties involved in the pending estate proceedings among the parties.

• Board Resolution: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in ruling that a corporation may arbitrarily take the law into its own hands by means of a mere board resolution.
• Possession: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in ruling that she was no longer in possession of the unit simply because she was in possession of another unit.

• Ownership and Authority: Respondents countered that the building and unit were owned by the corporation and that they changed the lock to protect their personal belongings and those of the corporation, supported by a board resolution.
• Ill Motive: Respondents countered that petitioner’s accusations were ill-motivated and arose from the family dispute over the estate.
• No Unlawful Taking: Respondents countered that petitioner did not report the alleged incident to the police and doubted her capability to acquire the alleged stolen belongings.

• Probable Cause: Whether there is probable cause to charge respondents with robbery over the personal properties taken from the 10th-floor unit.
• Unlawful Taking: Whether petitioner established the element of unlawful taking.
• Intent to Gain: Whether the element of intent to gain is present when respondents took the properties openly under a claim of ownership and as co-owners in a family corporation.

• Probable Cause: No. The SC found no probable cause for robbery because the evidence did not establish unlawful taking and intent to gain; the RTC’s withdrawal of the Information did not bar the SC’s final probable-cause determination.
• Unlawful Taking: No. Petitioner failed to establish unlawful taking, as she did not immediately report the first incident and waited about a month for the second, which was contrary to human nature given the claimed value.
• Intent to Gain: No. The taking was under a claim of ownership and among co-owners, which negates animus lucrandi; one who takes property openly and avowedly under a claim of title in good faith is not guilty of robbery even if the claim is untenable.

• 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; there is no definitive standard except to consider the attendant conditions. The SC noted that the OCP, the Secretary of Justice, and the CA had disagreed on probable cause, but it found no reason to depart from the CA conclusion that the evidence was insufficient. The RTC’s withdrawal of the Information did not bar the SC because the RTC did not make a probable-cause determination, and the propriety of probable cause was the very subject of the petition. Thus, no probable cause existed.

• Unlawful Taking: Robbery requires (1) personal property belonging to another; (2) unlawful taking; (3) intent to gain; and (4) violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The SC found petitioner failed to establish unlawful taking: she did not immediately report the first incident and waited for another incident after more or less one month, which was contrary to human nature if the value involved was as she claimed; her claim of intimidation by Benito did not excuse her inaction. Respondents admitted that, armed with a board resolution, they went to the unit to implement it because petitioner had allegedly prevented prospective buyers from inspecting the property. On these facts, unlawful taking was not shown.

• Intent to Gain: Animus lucrandi is an internal act established through overt acts; unlawful taking raises a presumption of intent to gain unless special circumstances reveal a different intent. Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the offended party of ownership with permanency and should not be under a claim of ownership; one who takes property openly and avowedly under a claim of title in good faith is not guilty of robbery even if the claim is untenable. The SC found respondents believed in good faith that they and the corporation owned the unit and the properties inside, and they took them openly under that claim; co-ownership negates intent to gain because they cannot steal properties they claim to own. The properties were involved in the pending estate proceedings, and petitioner had been staying in another unit because the 10th floor’s electric service was disconnected. Absent felonious intent, respondents should not be held liable.

• Probable Cause — 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. No definitive standard exists except to consider the attendant conditions. The SC applied it to find no probable cause for robbery because unlawful taking and intent to gain were not shown.

• Elements of Robbery — (1) personal property belonging to another; (2) unlawful taking; (3) intent to gain; and (4) violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. The SC found the evidence insufficient on unlawful taking and intent to gain.

• Animus Lucrandi — Intent to gain is an internal act established through overt acts; unlawful taking raises a presumption of intent to gain unless special circumstances reveal a different intent. The SC found the presumption rebutted by respondents’ open taking under a claim of ownership.

• Claim of Ownership Negates Intent to Gain — Taking property openly and avowedly under a claim of title offered in good faith is not robbery even if the claim of ownership is untenable. The SC applied this because respondents believed in good faith that they and the corporation owned the unit and properties.

• Co-ownership and Robbery — Co-ownership negates intent to gain because co-owners cannot steal properties they claim to own. The SC applied this to the family corporation and estate dispute, quoting the CA with approval.

• Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea — A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act is innocent. The SC applied this to hold respondents should not be liable absent felonious intent.

• Preliminary Investigation — It serves not only the State but also freedom and fair play; the prosecutor or judge must relieve the accused of trial once no sufficient evidence sustains probable cause. The SC applied this to justify denying the petition and preventing prosecution without 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.” — This is the SC’s definition of probable cause, applied to find the evidence insufficient to indict respondents for robbery.
• “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.” — This states the rule that a bona fide claim of ownership negates the intent to gain required for robbery.
• “The fact of co-ownership negates any intention to gain, as they cannot steal properties which they claim to own.” — The SC quoted this CA conclusion with approval to explain why the family corporation and estate dispute defeated probable cause for robbery.
• “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.” — This is the mens rea principle the SC used to hold that respondents should not be held liable absent felonious intent.

• Torres, Jr. vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 599 — Cited on the effect of the withdrawal of the Information; the SC used it to support its final determination of probable cause despite the RTC’s withdrawal order.
• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), represented by Rosella A. Santiago vs. Antonino O. Tobias III, G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012 — Cited for the definition of probable cause and the absence of a definitive standard except attendant conditions.
• Bernal vs. Court of Appeals, 247-A Phil. 92, 97 (1988) — Cited for the definition of robbery and the rule that taking must not be under a claim of ownership.
• De Guzman vs. People, G.R. No. 166502, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 452, 457 — Cited for animus lucrandi and the mens rea principle that a crime is not committed if the mind is innocent.
• United States vs. Manluco, 28 Phil. 360, 361 (1914) — Cited for the rule that intent to gain is deduced from surrounding circumstances and that taking under a claim of title in good faith is not robbery.
• Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. Mendoza, 494 Phil. 391, 416 (2005) — Cited on preliminary investigation and grave abuse of discretion; the SC used it to hold that filing an Information without sufficient probable cause constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

• Revised Penal Code, definition of robbery — The SC quoted: “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.” It applied the elements to find no probable cause because unlawful taking and intent to gain were absent.