64 Lily Sy v Hon. Sec.

of Justice

Facts:

 Petitioner Lily Sy is the owner of a condominium unit at the 10th floor of the Fortune Wealth
Condominium. Peitioner Sy claimed that respondents Benito, Glenn and a security guard of the
condominium building where she resides, forcefully entered and took 34 boxes of her personal
belongings worth P10,244,196. Petitioner Sy further alleged that the respondents replaced the
original door lock of the said unit with a new one. Respondents were therefore charged with
“Robbery in an inhabited place” committed through force upon things.
 Respondents on the other hand alleged that they are members of the board of directors of the
corporation under whom the condominium building was named and registered. Respondents
claimed that the unit where the petitioner resides was the residence of their family (including
petitioner) and that the corporation allowed petitioner to reside in the said unit out of tolerance.
Respondents reside in other vacant units of the condominium building.
 Respondents further explained that they replaced the door locks of their residences including the
petitioner’s to protect their belongings personal belongings, as petitioner initially changed the
original lock. This act of the respondents was under the authority of a board resolution issued by
the board of directors. Respondents alleged that Petitioner Sy was even staying at the ground flor
of the building, as there was no electricity in the 10th floor when the said “robbery incident
happened”.
 The subject condo unit and the properties placed therein were the subject of estate proceedings
between the siblings (petitioner and respondents) pending before another court.

Issue: Whether or not there was robbery

Held: No.

Ruling:

There was no robbery involved because the respondents took the properties (including those inside the
condo unit) under the claim of ownership.

Respondents should not be held liable for the alleged unlawful act absent a felonious intent. "Actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of is innocent.

Important: what is involved here is a dispute between and among members of a family corporation, the
Fortune Wealth Mansion Corporation. Petitioner Lily Sy and respondents Merry, Jennifer, and Glenn, all
surnamed Sy, are the owners-incorporators of said corporation, which owns and manages the Fortune
Wealth Mansion where petitioner allegedly resided and where the crime of robbery was allegedly
committed. As part-owners of the entire building and of the articles allegedly stolen from the 10th floor
of said building the very same properties that are involved between the same parties in a pending estate
proceeding, the respondents cannot, as co-owners, be therefore charged with robbery. The fact of co-
ownership negates any intention to gain, as they cannot steal properties which they claim to own.
Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with
the character of permanency. The taking should not be under a claim of ownership. Thus, one who takes
the property openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good faith is not guilty of robbery even
though the claim of ownership is untenable. The intent to gain cannot be established by direct evidence
being an internal act. It must, therefore, be deduced from the circumstances surrounding the commission
of the offense. In this case, it was shown that respondents believed in good faith that they and the
corporation own not only the subject unit but also the properties found inside. If at all, they took them
openly and avowedly under that claim of ownership. This is bolstered by the fact that at the time of the
alleged incident, petitioner had been staying in another unit because the electric service in the 10th floor
was disconnected.