BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RUBY AGUSTIN AND JOVELYN ANTONIO, G.R. NO. 223107 (MARCH 15, 2024): THE POWER OF THE COURTS TO COMMIT PRISONERS CARRIES WITH IT THE DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THEM IN CASE OF DETENTION FOR A PERIOD EQUIVALENT OR LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Accused Ruby Agustin (Ruby) and Jovelyn Antonio (Jovelyn) were hired sometime in 1999 as appraiser and secretary, respectively, of GQ Pawnshop in Camiling, Tarlac owned by Susie Qui (Susie). As appraiser, Ruby ascertains the genuineness of pawned items and requires customers to accomplish pawn tickets. Upon approval of the Pawnshop Manager, Alfonso Gervasio, Sr. (Alfonso), Ruby gives customers money based on appraised value of the items and copies of the pawn tickets. Ruby will put the pawned items in separate plastic bags with control numbers. At the end of each day, Alfonso stores all the pawned items in the safety vault of which only he and Susie knew the combination lock. Meanwhile, Jovelyn keeps records of the transactions and acts as a reliever whenever Ruby is not around. In 2000, both Ruby and Jovelyn resigned. However, upon assumption of new appraiser, it was discovered that several of the stored pawned items were fake and that Ruby and Jovelyn processed these transactions with a total value of Php585,250.00. When confronted by Alfonso, Ruby and Jovelyn admitted the fraud and undertook to return the money within a period of one year.
Aggrieved, Susie and Alfonso filed a Complaint for Qualified Theft which resulted in the finding of probable cause. On November 24, 2011, both of them were convicted by the trial court and were committed to the Correctional Institution for Women. On December 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed their conviction.
On appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the criminal liability of Ruby was already extinguished because of her death inside the Correctional due to multiple organ failure on February 26, 2017. Citing par. 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court held that the death of the accused before final judgment of conviction renders dismissible not only the criminal action but also the civil action to recover civil liability based on the commission of the crime. The reason being is because when the death of the accused supervenes pending appeal of the conviction, there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. Since the civil action is impliedly instituted in the criminal case, it is ipso facto dismissed. The Court, however, held that the civil liability of the accused may survive if it is predicated on a source of obligation other than a crime for which the victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of the deceased accused.
Regarding Jovelyn, the Court restated the elements of Qualified Theft, to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. The Court held that all the elements are present in the instant case. First, Jovelyn took the proceeds from the pledge of fake items. Second, the funds belong to GQ Pawnshop and its owner. Third, the absence of consent was shown in Jovelyn’s defiance of the specific procedures to ascertain genuineness of the pawned items and to allow the release of the money to the customers. Jovelyn employed the scheme using other persons who pawned pieces of jewelry that she passed off as genuine and collecting the proceeds after the fraudulent transactions. Fourth, the furtive taking of the money raised the reasonable presumption of the intent to gain. Fifth, Jovelyn held the proceeds of the pawned items without force, violence, or intimidation. Sixth, Jovelyn’s position as secretary and reliever in appraising the pieces of jewelry entails a high degree of confidence in having access to the funds of the pawnshop.
The Supreme Court discussed the penalty of Jovelyn which is absent any modifying circumstances, the maximum term of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods of nine years, four months, and one day to ten years and eight months.Citing the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, the Court ordered the immediate release of Jovelyn because she already served more than the maximum of the sentence: “On this point, Article 89, paragraph 2 of the RPC is explicit that criminal liability is totally extinguished by service of the sentence. The records show that Jovelyn has been incarcerated from November 24, 2011 up to present or for almost 12 years which is much more than the maximum imposable penalty of 10 years and eight months. The policy is to release detainees who have been imprisoned for a period equivalent or longer than the maximum imposable penalty. A contrary stance downgrades the basic principles under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners popularly known as the Nelson Mandela Rules which provide that ‘the purpose of a sentence of imprisonment or similar measures deprivative of a person’s liberty are primarily to protect society against crime or to reduce recidivism. Those purposes can be achieved only if the period of imprisonment is used to ensure, so far as practicable, the reintegration of such persons into society upon release so that they can lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life.’ Hence, Jovelyn must now be set free and any further delay is nothing but unjust.’”