This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The felony of qualified theft started with the use of the now missing falsified letter-request and supporting documents for the issuance of the manager's check and the re-activation of the MWSS C/A. It was the pretense of an authority from MWSS that deprived PNB the liberty to either withhold or freely give its consent for the valid reactivation of the account and issuance of the check. Quoting from Black v. State,[41] this Court held in Gaviola v. People[42] that such pretense does not validate a taking: In all cases where one in good faith takes another's property under claim of title in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of another, believed to be the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, it will not protect the taker. | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft as follows: Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence, against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. The elements of theft are: (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 against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[25] Therefore, in theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.[26] | |||||