G.R. No. L-54090 May 9, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABRAHAM SERANILLA Y PAPA, ELY SANCHEZ Y IBARRIENTOS and FRANK DE JOYA Y BORBON, respondents.

FACTS

The accused, Abraham Seranilla and Ely Sanchez, were employees of Philippine Airlines (PAL) working as a manifesting clerk and a cargo checker, respectively, at the Manila International Airport. Frank De Joya was a co-accused not employed by PAL. An information was filed alleging that on or about August 3, 1973, in Pasay City, the three accused, conspiring together, took and carried away a cargo freight containing dollar checks worth $127,450.51. The checks belonged to the First National City Bank and were being shipped via PAL to the United States. The package was received by PAL from the freight forwarder but never reached its destination. Investigation revealed it was never loaded onto the aircraft.
The prosecution presented evidence including the testimonies of bank and freight officials, and PAL supervisors, establishing the dispatch and non-receipt of the checks. CIS agents testified to arresting De Joya and Seranilla and confiscating bunches of the stolen checks from them. The trial court also considered the extrajudicial statements executed by the three accused after their arrest, wherein they admitted involvement. Based on this evidence, the Court of First Instance found Sanchez and Seranilla guilty of qualified theft and De Joya guilty of simple theft, imposing corresponding penalties.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal centered on the admissibility of the extrajudicial statements, the finding of conspiracy, the legality of the seizure of checks, and whether the crime of theft was committed given the nature of the checks.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On the admissibility of the extrajudicial statements, the Court found no evidence that they were extracted through force or intimidation, and noted they contained details only the perpetrators would know. Regarding conspiracy, the coordinated actions of Seranilla and Sanchez in their official capacities to divert the cargo, coupled with De Joya’s role in handling the stolen checks, established a common criminal design.
The Court rejected the argument that the seizure of checks from Seranilla was illegal, as it was conducted under a valid Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO). It also dismissed the claim that no crime was committed because the stolen dollar checks allegedly had no commercial value. The Court ruled that the intent to gain (animus lucrandi), not the actual realization of gain, is the essential element for theft. The fact that the checks were negotiable instruments belonging to another and were taken with intent to gain constituted the crime. The Court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, finding no reason to overturn them. The penalties were thus upheld.