Avecilla V Ca.docx

G.R. No. L-46370 June 12, 1992 ANTONIO AVECILLA, appellant-petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, appellees-respondents.

FACTS: Lourdes de Lacson (Lourdes), an employee of Litton Mills, Inc. (Litton), testified that her sister residing at the USA, Ma. Paz, sent her a registered letter containing a bank draft worth $400. Lourdes only knew about this letter through her other sister, Carmencita. Since she did not know about the letter, Lourdes went to the Post Office to inquire about this. Apparently, Avecilla, the messenger of Litton and her co-worker, had picked up the letter. Lourdes then made a call to Ma. Paz requesting her to stop the payment of the bank draft. Ma. Paz, thru Carmencita, informed Lourdes that a “stop payment” order had already been made to the drawee bank. However, a clerk from the Post Office had already released the letter to Avecilla and an unknown woman posing as Lourdes. The woman who introduced herself as Lourdes had actually signed the control book. When the real Lourdes arrived at the Post Office, she repudiated the signature as hers. Avecilla, in his defense, stated that he only received the letter from the Post Office because he saw that it bore the signature of Lourdes. After receiving the letter, he had left the same at the desk of Lourdes after 5:00 in the afternoon since nobody was at the office anymore. He also presented a Bank Statement stating that he had not benefitted from the amount of $400, as allegedly contained in the bank draft of the letter. Lourdes filed a criminal complaint before the RTC. The RTC found Avecilla guilty of simple theft. Upon appeal before the CA, it convicted Avecilla of qualified theft and increased his penalties. ISSUE: WON Avecilla possessed criminal intent. HELD: A thorough examination of the information reveals that it contains all the essential elements of the crime of theft, to wit: (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 the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. While the averments against Avecilla are vague, in nonetheless contains all the elements of theft. Although intent to gain was not explicitly alleged, it may be presumed from the allegation that the letter had been unlawfully taken. Avecilla’s defense that he had not benefitted from the said letter by providing a Bank Statement attesting to the same cannot be given credit because this fact does not change the nature of the crime because the moment that he gained possession of the thing, the unlawful taking is

complete. Although proof as to motive for the crime is essential when the evidence of the theft is circumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is the usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of useful property appertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveals different intent on the part of the perpetrator. As earlier noted, the intent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking. Hence, Avecilla is convicted of qualified theft.