Zapanta vs. People

The precise date of the commission of a crime need not be alleged in the information if it is not a material ingredient of the offense; an allegation that the offense was committed “sometime in the month of October, 2001” encompasses acts occurring in the immediately succeeding month of November. The corpus delicti in theft consists of two elements — that the property was lost by the owner, and that it was lost by felonious taking — and may be proven by credible testimonial and documentary evidence without the physical presentation of the stolen items.

In 2001, A. Mojica Construction and General Services (AMCGS) undertook the Porta Vaga building construction along Session Road, Baguio City. AMCGS subcontracted the structural steel framing to Anmar, Inc., owned by the Marigondon family. Anmar assigned Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta as project manager, entrusting him with the receiving, custody, and checking of all construction materials delivered to the project site. On two occasions in October 2001 and once in November 2001, Zapanta directed truck drivers and welders to unload wide flange steel beams along Marcos Highway and Mabini Street in Baguio City, purportedly for another Anmar project. Anmar later discovered the unauthorized diversions, and an inventory revealed a shortage of steel beams valued at ₱2,269,731.69.

• The Charge: Petitioner Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta was charged as project manager of Anmar, Inc. with qualified theft, committed “sometime in the month of October, 2001,” for taking wide flange steel beams worth ₱2,269,731.69 from the Porta Vaga project site without consent, in conspiracy with crane operator Concordio O. Loyao, Jr.

• Prosecution Evidence: In 2001, Anmar subcontracted the structural steel framing for the Porta Vaga building from AMCGS. Petitioner, as project manager, held general managerial duties including the receipt and custody of construction materials. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses — truck driver Danilo Bernardo and welders Edgardo Cano and Roberto Buen — who testified that on two occasions in October 2001, petitioner instructed them to unload 10 to 15 pieces of 20-foot wide flange steel beams along Marcos Highway, allegedly for another Anmar project. In November 2001, petitioner again directed the unloading of five to 16 pieces of five-meter and 40-foot steel beams along Marcos Highway and Mabini Street. In January 2002, AMCGS project manager Engr. Nella Aquino informed Anmar’s general manager Engr. Lorna Marigondon that steel beams had been returned to Anmar’s warehouse, as recorded in the security logbook on October 12, 19, and 26, 2001. Engr. Marigondon confronted petitioner, who denied the returns. Warehouseman Efren Marcelo conducted an inventory and, after being told by Cano about the Marcos Highway unloading, found and photographed some beams there. By the time Anmar sent a retrieval truck weeks later, the beams were gone. The total value of the unaccounted beams was ₱2,269,731.69. Documentary evidence included the security logbook entry, delivery receipts, photographs, letters, and sworn affidavits.

• Defense Version: Petitioner denied the charge, claiming he was employed by AMCGS, not Anmar, and that Engr. Marigondon falsely accused him because he planned to establish his own construction company.

• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies straightforward and credible, rejected petitioner’s bare denial, and convicted him. The CA affirmed, noting petitioner admitted he received his salary from Anmar, and found no improper motive for the witnesses to testify falsely.

• Violation of Right to be Informed: Petitioner argued that the information charged him with acts committed “sometime in the month of October, 2001,” yet he was convicted for acts in November 2001, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Failure to Prove Corpus Delicti: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to establish the fact of the loss because the stolen steel beams were never identified or offered in evidence, rendering the conviction invalid.

• Questions of Fact: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the issues raised pertained to the calibration of evidence — matters of fact not reviewable under a Rule 45 petition.
• Established Liability: In any event, the evidence on record indubitably demonstrated petitioner’s guilt for qualified theft.

• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the information’s allegation of the approximate date “sometime in the month of October, 2001” can sustain a conviction for acts committed in November 2001 without violating the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Corpus Delicti: Whether the failure to present the stolen steel beams in court is fatal to the prosecution’s cause for qualified theft.

• Sufficiency of Information: The date of the commission of the offense is not a material ingredient of qualified theft, and its precise averment is unnecessary. Under Sections 6 and 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an information is sufficient if it states the approximate date, and the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date. The phrase “sometime in the month of October, 2001” reasonably apprised petitioner of the charge and enabled him to prepare his defense. Since November is the month immediately following October, the allegation encompasses the November 2001 acts.

• Corpus Delicti: Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical objects stolen. In theft, the corpus delicti has two elements: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. Both elements were established through positive, credible testimonies of eyewitnesses Bernardo, Cano, and Buen, who stated that petitioner directed the unloading of beams at unauthorized locations under the pretext of a new project, along with documentary evidence — the security logbook entry, delivery receipts, and photographs. The physical presentation of the stolen items is not required. Corpus delicti may be proven even by a single witness’s uncorroborated testimony or by circumstantial evidence.

• Penalty: The proper penalty for qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code is determined by the value of the stolen property. With a value of ₱2,269,731.69 exceeding ₱22,000, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, imposed in the maximum period (8 years, 8 months, 1 day to 10 years). The value in excess of ₱22,000 is ₱2,247,731.69, divided by ₱10,000 yields 224 additional years, capped at a total of 20 years of reclusion temporal for simple theft. Qualified theft is punished two degrees higher, resulting in reclusion perpetua. The RTC and CA failed to name the penalty using proper legal terminology; thus, the penalty was corrected to reclusion perpetua.

• Sufficiency of the Allegation of Date in an Information — Under Sections 6 and 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an information need not state the precise date of the offense unless date is a material ingredient. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date. When date is not of the essence, the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows the offense was committed at any time within the statute of limitations and before the action commenced. Here, November 2001 fell immediately after October 2001, so the allegation was sufficient.
• Corpus Delicti in Theft — Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical object of the offense. In theft, it has two elements: (1) the property was lost by the owner, and (2) such loss occurred through felonious taking. It may be established by credible testimonial evidence, even uncorroborated, and by circumstantial evidence. The physical presentation of the stolen items is not necessary.
• Proper Penalty Nomenclature — Courts must employ the correct legal terminology under the Revised Penal Code because the principal penalty for a felony has its own specific duration and corresponding accessory penalties. The proper name of the penalty is reclusion perpetua for qualified theft when the value exceeds ₱22,000, computed by taking the basic penalty for simple theft (maximum 20 years of reclusion temporal) and raising it by two degrees.

• “Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered or, in this case, to the stolen steel beams. Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, this Court has ruled that even a single witness’ uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be established by circumstantial evidence.”
• “In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.”

• People v. Dion, G.R. No. 181035, July 4, 2011 — Cited for the rule that when the date is not a material element of the offense, it need not be proven as alleged; the complaint will be sustained if the offense is shown to have been committed within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action.
• Villarin v. People, G.R. No. 175289, August 31, 2011 — Cited for the principle that corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence and that even a single credible witness suffices.
• Gulmatico v. People, G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007 — Cited for the two elements of corpus delicti in theft: loss by the owner and loss by felonious taking.
• People v. Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011 — Cited for the proper penalty of reclusion perpetua in qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Section 6, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that an information is sufficient if it states, among others, the approximate date of the commission of the offense. Applied to sustain the information that used “sometime in the month of October, 2001” because the exact date is not a material ingredient of qualified theft.
• Section 11, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — States that it is unnecessary to state the precise date when it is not a material ingredient, and the offense may be alleged on a date as near as possible to the actual date. Applied to hold that November 2001 is sufficiently near October 2001.
• Article 310, in relation to Articles 308 and 309, Revised Penal Code — Defines qualified theft and its penalty as two degrees higher than that specified for simple theft. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua based on the value of the stolen steel beams.

Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred.