Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51662:gr-166502-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:45:29+00:00

Document:
FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the August 27, 2004 Decision1 and November 30, 20042 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 25253 entitled People of the Philippines v. Ramon Valdez, et al. The assailed decision affirmed the September 15, 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67 in Bauang, La Union in Criminal Case No. 1214-BG, which found petitioner Francisco de Guzman guilty of the crime of robbery with force upon things, while the assailed resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
During this time, Agustin learned that Lucia had been selling their personal properties. Alarmed, he asked Ramon Valdez, his son with Presentacion, to retrieve whatever was left in their house as those properties belonged to Ramon's mother. Ramon, who was also residing within Sobredillo, Caba, La Union, readily obeyed his father. Thus, sometime during the first week of September 1990, Ramon went to Lucia's house which was then closed and uninhabited. Consequently, Ramon demolished the north eastern portion of Lucia's kitchen to gain entry. He then solicited his neighbors' help in bringing out the properties from Lucia's house. Among those who assisted Ramon were Marlon Gatchalian, Elpidio Picazo, and petitioner Francisco de Guzman.
Both petitioner and Ramon pleaded not guilty to the charge. In his defense, Ramon admitted taking the properties but without intending to gain from his act. After the earthquake in 1990, according to Ramon, he received instruction from his father to take the personal properties belonging to his mother. He maintained that the properties taken were owned by his father and mother, and not by Lucia.
On the other hand, petitioner denied taking the properties for gain. He claimed that he merely helped Ramon bring out the properties belonging to the latter's father from Lucia's house. He explained that since his house was relatively nearer to Lucia's house, he acceded to Ramon's request that the wooden bench be temporarily placed in his house. But before Ramon could transfer the bench to his own house, Lucia arrived and reported them to the police.
2) [A]ccused Francisco de Guzman is hereby convicted of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of the indeterminate penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years and to pay the amount of [PhP] 3,700.00.
Petitioner appealed the case to the CA.
In a Decision dated August 27, 2004, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. It held that Ramon's acquittal cannot benefit petitioner because the defense of Ramon is based on his personal relationship with the private complainant. Further, it ruled that the prosecution established intent to gain when petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain how he was able to gain possession of Lucia's property.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner attached an affidavit executed by Lucia stating that petitioner was wrongfully charged of the crime. But the CA gave no probative value to Lucia's affidavit and denied the motion for reconsideration.
In essence, the determinative issue revolves on the presence of the element of intent to gain.
We are not convinced with moral certainty that petitioner had acted with intent to gain. Contrary to the findings of the trial and appellate courts, the records bear out that it was Ramon, under a claim of ownership, who had wanted the properties taken out from Lucia's house.14 And he had asked his neighbors, petitioner among them, to assist him in recovering these properties.15 To be sure, petitioner, like the others who helped Ramon, was an innocent person who merely acceded to a neighbor's request.
The only fact that perhaps raises doubt on petitioner's innocence was the presence of the wooden bench in his house. Petitioner, however, sufficiently explained that owing to the proximity of his house to that of Lucia's, Ramon had asked that the bench be temporarily left in petitioner's house until he could transfer it. Unfortunately, before Ramon could remove it, Lucia had already filed a complaint against them.16 Noticeably, petitioner did not falsely claim ownership over the bench nor did he make any effort to conceal that the bench was in his possession as it was placed outside his house. To our mind, his acts were consistent with his assertion that he was merely helping Ramon, whom he honestly believed to be the owner, take out the properties from Lucia's home.
As regards the affidavit of desistance executed by Lucia, we could not fault the appellate court for not giving it persuasive value, it being settled that affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused deserve only scant consideration.18 Even without the said affidavit, the circumstances of the case do not, however, confirm the culpability of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed CA Decision dated August 27, 2004 and Resolution dated November 30, 2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 25253 are REVERSED. Petitioner Francisco de Guzman is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. No costs.
1 Rollo, pp. 36-46. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (now Presiding Justice) and Josefina Guevara-Salonga.
9 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
10 Republic of the Philippines v. Estonilo, G.R. No. 157306, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 265, 276; International Finance Corporation v. Imperial Textile Mills, Inc., G.R. No. 160324, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 149, 162-163; Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152884, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 512, 525.
12 People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 528, 534.
13 People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284, 296.
17 People v. Ojeda, G.R. NOS. 104238-58, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 436, 445.
18 Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 135098, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 695, 703.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.