Dear PAO,

My brother owns a car repair shop. The shop employs some of our relatives, including our cousins. Unfortunately, they stole some of the company’s property. When the knowledge of stealing was brought to their attention, they gloated about their alleged exemption from criminal liability due to their relationship with my brother. As such, may we know if a complainant’s “cousin” is indeed exempted from criminal liability for the crime of theft?

Donici

Dear Donici,

The answer to your query is no. To elucidate this answer, allow us to lead your attention to the provisions of Act 3815, otherwise known as the “Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.” Succinctly, Article 332 of the said law reads:

“EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. – No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:

“1.Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.

“2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and

“3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

Related with the above-mentioned, the following guidance on relationship found in the provisions of Republic Act 386, or commonly referred to as the “Civil Code of the Philippines” is instructive:

“Article 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either

or collateral.

direct A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.

“A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who come from a common ancestor. (916a)

“Article 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.

“The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him.

“The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.”

In connection with the foregoing, it is clear that the relatives mentioned in Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, other than brothers and sisters, is limited to the relatives in the direct line, i.e., either an ascendant or descendant. Clearly, the law does not include someone’s cousin as the latter only shares a common ascendant but are not directly related as ascendantdescendant.

Apart from the aforementioned, your narration also shows the unlawful taking of an employee of personal belongings owned by the employer. As such, the possibility of the commission of the crime of qualified theft cannot be excluded. Therefore, applying the words of the Supreme Court in the case of Intestate Estate of Vda. De Carungcong v. People (GR 181409, Feb. 11 2010) penned by the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, the absolutory cause or exemption provided by our law is clearly inapplicable in your query, thus:

“The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly liable.

“However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.