Alfonso D. Gaviola v.

People of the Philippines Facts: The RTC convicted Alfonso Gaviola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft. On September 6, 1997 at 7:00 am, Jovencio Mejarito, a nephew of Cleto Mejarito, and a barangay councilman saw Gavino Gaviola, Rodrigo Gaviola and Domingo Caingcoy climbing the coconut trees and deliberately took, harvested and gathered 1500 coconuts thru the supervision of Alfonso and Leticia Gaviola from the plantation of Cleto Mejarito without his authority and consent. The said accused admitted that the coconuts were taken upon his instruction but insisted that the trees were planted from the lot he inherited from his father. Issue: Whether or not the said accused is guilty of the crime of qualified theft Ruling: Yes, Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code states that theft is committed by any person, who with intent to gain but without violence, against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters consent. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner, 2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him and 3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed state or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products. Thus, the elements of theft are: 1). That there be taking of personal property; 2) that said property belongs to another; 3) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner and 5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. According to Article 310. Qualified theft- The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degree than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. For one to be guilty of theft, the accused must have an intent to steal(animu furandi) personal property, meaning the intent to deprive another of his ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from but concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo.Thus, petitioners claim of good faith in taking the coconuts from private complainants land is a mere pretense to escape criminal liability. Rommel Briones v. People of the Philippines Facts: On January 6,1998 at around 11:00 pm, S/G Molina and Gual were manning the northwest bound gate of BF Homes Northwest bound gate of BF Homes Northwest Paranaque. Then suddenly, they noticed Romulo Bercamina, homeowner being mauled by four individuals,two of them were identified as Briones and his brother.

The two security guards approached the group to stop the mauling then Briones suddenly grabbed the .38 caliber gun from S/G Molina. The RTC found him guilty of simple theft under paragraph 3, Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. Issue: Whether or not the said accused is guilty of robbery Ruling: No, The RTC ruled that Briones is guilty of simple theft under paragraph 3, Article 309 of Revised Penal Code while the Court of Appeals ruled that he is guilty of robbery under Article 293 in relation to paragraph 5 of Article 294 stating that force and intimidation attended the taking of the .38 caliber gun. The Supreme Court held that the crime committed was theft, not robbery. To show that robbery was committed, these elements must be present 1). the taking of personal property be committed with violence/intimidation against persons; 2). The property taken belongs to another and 3). The taking be done with animo lucrandi. On the other hand, the elements constituting the crime of theft are 1) that there be taking of personal property; 2) that said property belongs to another 3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; 4) that the taking be done without consent of the owner 5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against intimidation of persons or force upon things. Thus, the crime committed was theft because the said crime was not attended by violence or intimidation. Theft is produced the moment there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking with intent to gain. Therefore, the said accused can only be held liable of the crime of theft, not robbery. People of the Philippines v. Domingo Paniterce Facts: The RTC found appellant Domingo Paniterce guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Sometime in the year 1997, appellant Paniterce with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with his daughter AAA,10 year old minor against her will and consent and on other occasion on August 26,2000 rape his 12 year old daughter BBB,against her will and without consent When arraigned, Paniterce pleaded not guilty to the charges. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant for acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Cases Nos.6077, 6078,6080 and 6081, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer in each and every case ain indeterminate prison term of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 6 years of prison correccional as maximum and to pay AAA and BBB 50,000 each as moral damages and 50,000 as exemplary damages and for rape in Criminal case No.6079, appellant ishereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay AAA the amount of 50,000 as moral damages and 50,000 as exemplary damages. On September 16,2008, Paniterce filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals which was granted. Pending appeal of his conviction, Paniterce died. Issue: Whether or not death of the accused extinguishes his criminal liability as well as civil liability Ruling: Yes, According to Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to pecuniary penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is only
when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment

The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines in People v. Bayotas

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. 2. Corrolarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a. Law b. Contracts c. Quasi-Contracts

d. Delict e. Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a
separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with the provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. Thus, the accused criminal liability were totally extinguished by his death. Moreover, because Paniterces appeal was still pending and no final judgment of conviction had been rendered against him when he died, his civil liabilities arising from the crimes, being civil liabilities ex delicto, were likewise extinguished by his death.