GR 166502; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166502; October 17, 2008
FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco de Guzman was charged with robbery with force upon things. The case stemmed from an incident in the first week of September 1990 in Caba, La Union. Ramon Valdez, the son of Agustin Valdez (husband of private complainant Lucia Valdez), upon instruction from his father, demolished a portion of Lucia’s uninhabited house to retrieve personal properties he claimed belonged to his deceased mother. Ramon solicited help from neighbors, including petitioner, to bring out the properties. Agustin Mendegoria witnessed Ramon and petitioner removing items like chairs, aparadors, and a wooden bench. Lucia discovered her properties at Ramon’s house and the wooden bench outside petitioner’s house. She reported the matter to the police. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner but acquitted Ramon, ordering Ramon to repair the damaged wall. The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conviction, giving no probative value to a subsequent affidavit of desistance executed by Lucia.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of petitioner for the crime of robbery with force upon things was proved beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the presence of the element of intent to gain (animus lucrandi).
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and ACQUITTED petitioner Francisco de Guzman. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the element of intent to gain. Petitioner merely acceded to a neighbor’s request to assist Ramon Valdez, who claimed ownership of the properties. Petitioner’s act of temporarily keeping the wooden bench outside his house, upon Ramon’s request due to proximity, and without claiming ownership or concealing it, was consistent with his assertion of innocent assistance. The absence of felonious intent negates criminal liability. The affidavit of desistance by Lucia was correctly given scant consideration by the appellate court, but even without it, the circumstances did not establish petitioner’s culpability.