CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

33. BENJAMIN VENTURINA, v. SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Venturina, a track man of the Philippine National Railways (PNR) since 1968, was a member of a team
assigned to retrieve rails along the abandoned Manila-Cabanatuan line.
Rolando Marinay, PNR Security Investigation Officer, and his co-officers, were instructed by the Chief Security Officer to
proceed to San Rafael, Bulacan to look into reports about certain persons dismantling and cutting rails of PNR abandoned
lines in that area.
Arriving there at about 4:00 p.m., Marinay and his group found three (3) persons cutting rails and I-beams of the
abandoned PNR railroad tracks with an acetylene torch. About twenty three (23) pieces of cut rails ranging from about 1 1/2
to 3 feet in length with a total value of P58,500.00 had already been cut and were lying about.
They recognized one of the three (3) men as Benjamin Venturina, herein petitioner. The other two were non-PNR employees
identified as Lolito Magan and Renato Rojo.
When asked about their activity in the vicinity, petitioner Venturina told Marinay that he was instructed by Reynaldo Habalo
to cut the rails preparatory to bringing them to Caloocan City. Venturina also showed Marinay a handwritten authority on
PNR stationary. Doubting the authenticity of the alleged authority, Marinay brought Venturina and his men to the PC
Headquarters.
On May 28, 1985, petitioner Venturina and others were charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of frustrated
qualified theft defined under Article 310 of the Penal Code.
Only petitioner Venturina appeared at the arraignment. He pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded against him.
the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding Venturina guilty of the lesser offense of simple theft at the attempted stage.
Venturina filed this petition contending that he did not personally cut the rails but merely gave direction to the persons
cutting the rails in the area upon the request of PNR auditor Reynaldo Habalo, Who showed him a written authorization from
team leader Engineer Pantaleon, Jr.
Petitioner emphasizes that his act of supervising the cutting of the steel rails and beams should not be interpreted as an
overt act of attempting to steal the rails because petitioner believed then that he and his companions had the authority to
do so

ISSUE:

WON The Sandiganbayan erred finding the petitioner guilty with the crime of attempted theft
HELD:
NO. The Sandiganbayan did not err in finding that Venturina was in conspiracy with the other accused in the crime

of simple theft.

Assuming that Venturina only "supervised" the cutting of the rails, that act was his own direct participation in the criminal
conspiracy to steal government property. It is not indispensable that a co-conspirator should take a direct hand in every act.
Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony. It is not participation in all the details of the execution of the crime.
All those who in one way or another helped and cooperated in the consummation of the crime are considered as coprincipals.
As a trackman who has joined several retrieval missions in the past, Venturina cannot deny that he knowingly took part in
an illegal activity. He knew the proper procedure to be followed in salvaging operations. But at the time of apprehension,
Venturina was supervising Magan and Rojo in cutting the rails. Those two were not even employees of the PNR and the
acetylene torch they were using belonged to Tebajia, also a private individual.cha
Venturina claims that the retrieval mission was with the prior permission of Engineer Pantaleon, Jr. But the alleged
authorization was patently anomalous. To begin with, the authority should come from the PNR General Manager and not
from a team leader. Secondly, the authority did not indicate the area of operation. Neither did it specifically permit Venturina
and his companions to cut the rails into smaller pieces prior to their being transported to the Stockpile Material Management
yard in Caloocan City.
IN THEFT COMMITTED THROUGH CONSPIRACY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL OF THE CONSPIRATORS HAVE RESOLVED
TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY FROM THE TAKING. Where theft has been committed through complicity, it is not necessary
that each and everyone of the conspirators may have resolved to benefit personally from the taking. It should be enough
that they intended that any one of them should benefit therefrom.
THEFT; INTENT TO GAIN; PRESUMED FROM ALL FURTIVE TAKING OF PROPERTY OF ANOTHER. Intent is a mental state,
the existence of which is made manifest by overt acts of a person. The intent to gain is presumed from all furtive taking of
useful property appertaining to another unless special circumstances disclose a different motivation on the perpetrators
part. It is immaterial if there were a real or actual gain. The essential consideration is that there was an intent to gain.

34. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ISAGANI GULINAO

FACTS: Gulinao was the driver-bodyguard of Dr. Samson Chua.

On March 3, 1987, at about 9:00 P.M , Dr. Chua, appellant Gulinao, Virgilio Caguioa (secretary of Dr. Chua), Vice Mayor
Teofilo Reyes of Malabon, Dante Reyes (nephew of Vice Mayor Reyes), Boy Salazar and other politicians were having a
caucus in the house of a certain Torre in Acacia, Malabon.
After the caucus at about 11:00 P.M they went to Bar-Bar Disco House along McArthur Highway, Valenzuela, Metro Manila
Upon arriving at the disco house, Gulinao, who had in his possession an Ingram machine pistol, swapped the same with a .
45 caliber pistol in possession of Dante Reyes. Gulinao then tucked the .45 caliber pistol in his right waist
Inside the disco house, While Dr. Chua was watching the floor show, Gulinao stood up and shot him on the head at close
range with the .45 caliber pistol. When Gulinao was about to leave the disco house, he turned back to Dr. Chua and took the
latter's gold ring embedded with 12 diamonds. Thereupon, Gulinao rushed outside the disco house to the car of Dr. Chua
and drove it towards Monumento. However, he was constrained to leave the car and take a taxi when the car he was driving
figured in an accident in Malabon
In three (3) separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Isagani Gulinao was
charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm with Murder; Robbery; Carnapping
The aforesaid three (3) criminal cases were jointly tried and the trial court found Gulinao of the crimes charged against him.

ISSUE:

WON Gulinao is guilty of Robbery

HELD:

No.

Gulinao should have been convicted of the crime of theft under Art. 308, Revised Penal Code, not robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of a person under par. 5, Art. 294 Revised Penal Code. As the trial court itself noted, on the basis of
Patino's testimony, the taking of the ring of Dr. Chua was merely an afterthought. The force employed in the killing of Dr. Chua has
no bearing on the taking of his ring.
Gulinao's contention in his fourth assignment of error that there was no proof of intent to gain in the taking of Dr. Chua's car is bereft
of merit. Intent to gain, being an internal act, is presumed from the unlawful taking of the car. This presumption was unrebutted.
35. U.S. v. Julian Reyes, 6 Phil. 441
FACTS:

Vicente Sulit occupied as a tenant several parcels of land within the hacienda of Justo Guido for the use of which he gave to
the owner 30 cavanes of palay for every 3 cavanes of seed received from the latter
that the said Vicente Sulit, who was a man 80 years of age, entered into an agreement with Julian de los Reyes whereby the
former was to contribute 3 cavanes of seed and sow the same, and in addition thereto, two carabaos, two harrows, two
carts, and 24 pesos in cash, and the latter was to transplant the seed and take care of and harvest the crop, the profits to
be divided between them, share and share alike, after deducting the 30 cavanes due to the owner of the land, Reyes to
reimburse his partner one-half of the expenses defrayed in advance by Sulit;
that when the crop was ready to be harvested, Reyes being sick, Sulit did the work, stacked the rice, and when the time
came for trashing the rice, Reyes did the trashing.
But when Sulit went upon the land to take his share of the rice, he found Reyes selling palay to various persons, and he
refused to give him (Sulit) any part thereof, saying that he was not this partner because the rice belonged to the town.
The court convicted Reyes with the crime of theft.
However, The Attorney-General is of the opinion that the crime committed was not that of theft , and suggests that the
crime committed was rather that ofestafa

ISSUE:

WON Reyes committed the crime of theft

HELD:

No.

the defendant could have harvested and trashed the crop in question by reason of his possession, both de facto, and de
jure.
He was in possession of the palay of which he freely disposed without taking or abstracting the same from anyone, and he
had a right to lawfully disposed of an aliquot part of the crop. If he had disposed of all of the crop his action would have
been unlawful
His unlawful disposition of the share belonging to his partner or joint owner was undoubtedly a violation of their contract
and a trespass upon the rights of another but not an act constituting the crime of theft.
If the defendant was lawfully in possession of the rice he certainly did not, when he disposed of it, take it or abstract it from
another. Such taking and abstracting is what contitutes the crime of theft.