Tumog vs. People

A person found in possession of a thing taken in a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and doer of the whole act under Section 3(j), Rule 131, and this presumption applies to robbery; if the accused offers no reasonable explanation, it can support conviction. Civil indemnity ex delicto cannot be fixed at the full value of stolen items when there was complete restitution and no proof of consequential damages.

Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza was the private complainant and employer of Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol, whom she treated as a family member and employed in her office as an all-around janitor. The charge was robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, which penalizes entry by breaking any wall, roof, floor, door, or window and makes the penalty depend on the value of the property taken and whether the offender carried arms.

Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza hired Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol as a stay-out errand boy in March 2015 and also employed him at her office as an all-around janitor; she treated him as a family member. On May 30, 2015, she left for Manila to attend to her daughter. A day before her departure, she asked petitioner to help her bring home some items from her office, and before leaving she locked and secured her house.

On May 31, 2015, when private complainant returned to her house in Pagadian City, she found the doors open, the windowpanes removed, and the side wall of her kitchen door forcibly opened. Inside, two big cabinets had been broken into, and the items enumerated in the Information were missing. She immediately reported the robbery and ransacking to the barangay and filed a report with the Pagadian City Police Station, where the incident was entered in the police blotter.

The following day, private complainant went to her office and met petitioner, who appeared ill-at-ease and speechless. She instructed him to do his daily routine and to return to the office by 12 noon, but he failed to return. She then called petitioner’s aunt, Abelita Almogera, asked for his whereabouts, and told her that her house had been robbed. Almogera and petitioner’s brother, Nhorkhan, looked for petitioner and found him at his rented room in a boarding house in San Pedro District. In his possession were items belonging to private complainant. When Almogera asked him what he had done, petitioner hugged her and cried. Almogera coordinated with private complainant and told her that petitioner would go to her office to ask for forgiveness.

Accompanied by Almogera and Nhorkhan, petitioner went to the office bringing some of the stolen items and asked for forgiveness, but private complainant said she would first seek legal advice. Private complainant then coordinated with Police Officer 1 Renjie Narciso of the Pagadian City Police Station to conduct an investigation at petitioner’s boarding house. Together with Almogera, Nhorkhan, and petitioner, PO1 Narciso proceeded there and found some of private complainant’s stolen belongings; he prepared an inventory that both petitioner and Almogera signed. Afterwards, petitioner, again accompanied by Almogera and Nhorkhan, went to the Pagadian City Police Station to surrender and apologize. Private complainant also proceeded there to identify and recover the stolen items.

An Information for robbery was subsequently filed against petitioner before Branch 20, RTC of Pagadian City. Petitioner opted not to present any evidence and merely submitted the case for the RTC’s decision. The RTC found that the prosecution witnesses sufficiently established all the elements of the offense and petitioner’s identity, relying on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 that a person found in possession of a thing taken in a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; it noted that petitioner neither explained how the stolen items came into his possession nor claimed ownership of them.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Petitioner argued that not every possibility of innocence had been excluded because no one saw who actually committed the robbery; the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence merely showed the destruction of private complainant’s wooden wall and the taking of her personal property, not who did the crime.
• Possession of Stolen Items: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in concluding he was the author of the crime based solely on the fact that the stolen items were recovered in his rented residence, since that did not account for the possibility that someone else placed the items there.
• Classification of the Offense: Petitioner maintained that, assuming arguendo he was guilty, he was liable only for theft and not robbery because there was no evidence that he used force upon things or broke the wooden wall of private complainant’s kitchen to commit the deed.
• Illegal Arrest and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Petitioner claimed that his arrest was illegal and that any evidence obtained incidental thereto was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

• Mode of Appeal / Questions of Fact: Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be entertained where the grounds raised—sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and the classification of the offense—are questions of fact.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Presumption from Possession: Whether the prosecution established petitioner as the perpetrator of the robbery beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131.
• Classification of the Offense: Whether petitioner is guilty of robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the RPC rather than theft, given the alleged absence of proof of force upon things.
• Civil Indemnity: Whether the RTC’s award of PHP 325,000.00 as civil indemnity should be deleted where the stolen items were returned and no evidence of consequential damages was presented.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty should be modified to prision mayor in its minimum period, and what indeterminate sentence should be imposed, considering that petitioner was not armed and voluntarily surrendered.

• Mode of Appeal / Questions of Fact: No, as a general rule. Rule 45 proscribes factual issues, and the RTC’s findings affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive when supported by evidence; no exception was shown. The SC nonetheless reviewed the records and reached the same conclusions.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Presumption from Possession: Yes. The disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 applied because petitioner was found in possession of recently stolen items and offered no reasonable explanation; together with the circumstantial evidence, it established him as the perpetrator.
• Classification of the Offense: Yes, robbery. All elements of robbery by use of force upon things under Article 299(a)(2) were proved, including the breaking of the kitchen side wall and removal of the window pane.
• Civil Indemnity: No. The full value of the stolen items cannot be awarded as civil indemnity where there was complete restitution and no proof of consequential damages; the award would unjustly enrich private complainant.
• Penalty: Yes. Since petitioner was not armed and the value exceeded PHP 50,000.00, the penalty is prision mayor; with voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law fixes the minimum within prision correccional.

• Mode of Appeal / Questions of Fact: Rule 45 generally proscribes factual issues and requires questions of substance. Petitioner’s main arguments—insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and whether the crime is robbery or theft—entail a review of the evidence and are questions of fact. Petitioner failed to show that any exception applied. When the findings of fact of the RTC are affirmed by the CA, they are final and conclusive upon the SC especially when supported by the evidence on record. Even if the SC reviewed the evidence, it would arrive at the same conclusions on the existence of the crime and petitioner’s culpability.
• Sufficiency of Evidence / Presumption from Possession: The prosecution established petitioner as the perpetrator through circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131. Petitioner never denied that private complainant was robbed; he only claimed there was no eyewitness testimony pinning him down. The presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act is satisfactory if uncontradicted and applies to theft, robbery, or carnapping alike. Petitioner failed to present any reasonable explanation for the presence of the stolen items in his home; his claim that his lessor or aunt planted the items defied logic and common sense, and he presented no countervailing evidence. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses further solidified the presumption.
• Classification of the Offense: Article 299(a)(2) of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 10951, requires (1) unlawful taking; (2) of personal property belonging to another; (3) with intent to gain; and (4) with force upon things, i.e., by breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window to enter the building where the robbery is committed. The penalty depends on the value of the things taken and whether the offender carried arms. The documentary and testimonial evidence proved that assorted personal properties were unlawfully taken; these items belonged to private complainant; intent to gain was presumed from the unlawful taking and established by the fact that the stolen goods were found in petitioner’s house; and the robbery was effected through the breaking of the side wall of the kitchen door and the removal of the window pane near the kitchen counter. Private complainant’s testimony proved the valuation of the stolen items totaling PHP 325,000.00, and petitioner was not armed at the time of the commission of the crime.
• Civil Indemnity: Civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in criminal law for the offended party, apart from other proven actual damages, and is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. While all persons criminally liable are also civilly liable, the trial court does not have absolute discretion in what may be awarded. Under Article 105 of the RPC, restitution of the things subject of the crime must be made whenever possible; if restitution is not possible, reparations may be awarded based on the prices of the items and their special sentimental value, and consequential damages may be awarded under Article 107. Evidence must still be adduced to prove the extent of damages. The RTC awarded the full value of the stolen items as “penalty pursuant to Article 299,” but Article 299 does not provide for a separate penalty. The award seemed to partake of reparations, which was improper because there was complete restitution. At best, it could be considered civil indemnity for consequential damages, but no evidence was proffered. To award the full value of the recovered items without proof would allow private complainant to unjustly enrich herself at petitioner’s expense. Although the issue was not assigned as error, the SC corrected the award in the higher interest of substantial justice because it was patently contrary to the evidence and the RPC.
• Penalty: Article 299, as amended by RA No. 10951, prescribes the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal for robbery in an inhabited house when the offender does not carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds PHP 50,000.00. The RTC recognized that there was no evidence that petitioner was armed at the time of the commission of the crime. Thus, the proper penalty is prision mayor. Factoring in the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, which is six years and one day to eight years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum shall be taken within the range of prision mayor minimum, and the minimum shall be taken within the full range of prision correccional, which is one degree lower than the penalty prescribed by law.

• Disputable presumption from possession of recently stolen property — Under Section 3(j), Rule 131, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. The presumption is satisfactory if uncontradicted and applies to theft, robbery, or carnapping. The SC applied it because petitioner was found with private complainant’s stolen items and offered no reasonable explanation, making him the perpetrator.
• Elements of robbery by use of force upon things — Article 299(a)(2) requires (1) unlawful taking; (2) of personal property belonging to another; (3) with intent to gain; and (4) with force upon things, i.e., by breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window to enter the building. The penalty depends on the value of the property taken and whether the offender carried arms. The SC found all elements proved through the broken kitchen side wall, removed window pane, missing properties, and petitioner’s possession of the stolen goods.
• Civil indemnity ex delicto and restitution — Civil indemnity ex delicto is monetary restitution or compensation for the damage caused by the offense and is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages. Under Article 105 of the RPC, restitution of the thing subject of the crime must be made whenever possible; if not possible, reparations may be awarded under Article 106 based on price and sentimental value, while consequential damages under Article 107 require proof. The SC deleted the full-value award because the stolen items were returned and no consequential damages were proved.
• Penalty for robbery in an inhabited house without arms under RA 10951 — Article 299, as amended, prescribes the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal when the offender does not carry arms and the value of the property taken exceeds PHP 50,000.00. The SC applied prision mayor, lowered to prision mayor minimum by voluntary surrender, and used the Indeterminate Sentence Law to set the minimum within prision correccional and the maximum within prision mayor minimum.
• Rule 45 and factual findings — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 generally raises only questions of law; factual issues are outside its scope, and factual findings of the RTC affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive when supported by evidence. The SC applied this rule because petitioner’s arguments on sufficiency of evidence and classification of the offense were factual, and no exception was shown.

• “a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.” — This is the Section 3(j), Rule 131 presumption that the SC applied to establish petitioner as the perpetrator of the robbery.
• “The foregoing presumption is satisfactory if uncontradicted by other evidence, and applies to theft, robbery, or carnapping alike.” — The SC used this to confirm that the presumption from possession of recently stolen property is available in robbery cases.
• “Under Article 105 of the RPC, restitution of the things subject of the crime must be made whenever possible. If restitution is not possible, reparations may be awarded based on the prices of the items and the special sentimental value to the injured party, if any.” — The SC relied on this rule to delete the full-value civil indemnity because the stolen items had been returned.
• “The civil indemnity of PHP 325,000.00 is DELETED.” — This is the SC’s final correction of the RTC’s award after finding that complete restitution had been made and no consequential damages were proved.

• Kumar vs. People, 874 Phil. 214, 227 (2020) — Cited to support the rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 generally proscribes factual issues and must raise questions of substance.
• Maestrado vs. People, G.R. No. 253629, September 28, 2022 — Cited to support the finality and conclusiveness upon the SC of factual findings of the RTC when affirmed by the CA and supported by evidence.
• Labay vs. People, G.R. No. 241850 (Resolution), April 28, 2021 — Cited to recognize that the rule against factual issues in a Rule 45 petition admits of exceptions.
• Ablaza vs. People, G.R. No. 217722, 840 Phil. 627, 645 (2018) — Cited for the elements of robbery by use of force upon things.
• People vs. Cordial, G.R. No. 250128, November 24, 2021 — Cited for the elements of robbery and the rule that intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking.
• People vs. Barrera, 891 Phil. 55, 76 (2020) — Cited for the rule that the penalty for robbery depends on the value of the property taken and whether the offender carried arms.
• People vs. Donio y Untalan, 806 Phil. 601 (2017) — Cited for the rule that the Section 3(j), Rule 131 presumption applies to theft, robbery, or carnapping alike.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 826 (2016) — Cited for the definition of civil indemnity ex delicto as monetary restitution or compensation equivalent to actual or compensatory damages.

• Article 299(a)(2), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 — Defines robbery in an inhabited house by breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window; the penalty depends on the value of the property taken and whether the offender carried arms. The SC applied it to convict petitioner and to fix the penalty at prision mayor because he was unarmed and the value exceeded PHP 50,000.00.
• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Cited for the elements of robbery: unlawful taking, personal property belonging to another, intent to gain, and force upon things. The SC used these elements to reject petitioner’s claim that the crime was only theft.
• Section 3(j), Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC) — Provides the disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act. The SC applied it because petitioner possessed the recently stolen items and gave no reasonable explanation.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari and generally proscribes factual issues. The SC applied it in holding that petitioner’s sufficiency-of-evidence and classification arguments were factual, while still reviewing the records and affirming the conviction.
• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — States that all persons criminally liable are also civilly liable. The SC recognized the principle but held that the trial court does not have absolute discretion in awarding civil indemnity.
• Article 105, Revised Penal Code — Requires restitution of the things subject of the crime whenever possible; if restitution is not possible, reparations may be awarded. The SC applied it to delete the full-value award because the stolen items were returned.
• Article 106, Revised Penal Code — Allows reparations based on the price of the thing and its special sentimental value to the injured party. The SC noted that reparations were improper because there was complete restitution.
• Article 107, Revised Penal Code — Allows consequential damages for the victim, family, or third persons. The SC held that no evidence was presented to prove such damages.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum within the full range of prision correccional, one degree lower than the prescribed penalty, and the maximum within prision mayor minimum.