G.R. No. L-19263; October 31, 1963
Tahimik Ramirez, petitioner, vs. Hon. Nicasio Yatco, et al., respondents.

FACTS

An Oldsmobile car, owned by Bulkley, Dunton Paper (Far East) Co., Inc., was stolen. An information for qualified theft was filed against Edgardo Reyes, et al., before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The car was seized from Tahimik Ramirez, who claimed to have purchased it in good faith from Bachrach Motor Company, by virtue of a search warrant issued by the Manila Municipal Court. After the trial court convicted the accused (who appealed), Bulkley, Dunton filed a petition in the criminal case for restitution of the car under Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code. Ramirez opposed, asserting his rights as a purchaser in good faith under Article 559 of the Civil Code and arguing that ownership should be litigated in a separate civil action.
The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Nicasio Yatco, issued an order on November 25, 1961, directing the restitution of the car to Bulkley, Dunton. Ramirez, alleging hostility from the court which prevented him from fully expressing his views, did not file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, he filed this petition for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction. This Court initially granted a writ, ordering the car’s return to Ramirez or to the Manila Municipal Court pending further orders.

ISSUE

Did the trial court commit a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the restitution of the stolen motor vehicle to the offended party, Bulkley, Dunton, under Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, despite the claim of a third-party purchaser in good faith?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that the court shall order the restitution of the thing itself to the offended party whenever possible, even if found in the possession of a third person who acquired it by lawful means. The only exception is when the thing has been acquired by a third person in a manner that legally bars an action for its recovery (e.g., acquisitive prescription). The trial court, after convicting the accused and verifying the car’s identity through ocular inspection, properly applied Article 105. Ramirez’s claim of being a purchaser in good faith does not, by itself, constitute an exception under this penal provision. His remedy is to pursue a separate civil action to assert his alleged ownership rights against the proper parties. The fact that the car was initially seized and held under a search warrant by the Manila Municipal Court did not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction to order restitution in the criminal case where the property was the subject of the offense. The petition was denied, and the preliminary writ was dissolved.