REYES, J.
:
The instant Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails the Decision[2] and
Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated September 20, 2012 and
February 13, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 30621, which modified
the Joint Decision[4] rendered on March 25, 2006 by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, convicting Francisco T.
Inocencio (petitioner) of two counts of Theft.
Antecedent Facts
As summed up by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the
prosecution's version of the facts is as follows:
Petitioner was an employee of the then Far East Bank and Trust Company
(FEBTC) from April 1978 to August 1998. Petitioner's last position therein
was manager of the Automated feller Machine (ATM) Services Department
Cash Management Division. As manager of said division, petitioner had
control, possession, and custody of bank money amounting up to One
Hundred Million Pesos. As an FEBTC employee, petitioner had an FEBTC
payroll/ATM account. Through his ATM card and its Personalized
Identification Number known only to him, petitioner could inquire about
his balance, transfer money to and from his ATM account, and pay his bills.
Sometime in 1998, Liza Sarao (Sarao), an audit officer at FEBTC's Boni
Avenue [Mandaluyong City] branch, conducted a special audit on said
branch to investigate reported anomalous transactions performed by
petitioner and the branch trade officer, Ma. Milagros T. Clemente
(Clemente).
Sarao alleged, inter alia, that: (1) on February 9, 1994, Clemente
fraudulently credited the amount of One Million One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Four Pesos and Seventy-Four Centavos (Php
1,150,634.74) to FEBTC Account No. 515-12910-8, belonging to her relative,
Theresa Clemente;[5] (2) One Million Two Hundred Sixty-Two
Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos and Fifty
Centavos (Php 1,262,774.50) was fraudulently transferred to
petitioner's FEBTC Account No. 5115-12827-6 in three (3)
transactions: (a) Five Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy-Four Pesos and Fifty-Two Centavos (Php 562,774.52); (b) Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 400,000.00); and (c) Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00); and (3) Petitioner later withdrew the
whole amount, as evidenced by the deposit and withdrawal slips stored in
FEBTC's Central Operations] Department.
Sarao also claimed that the funding of petitioner's FEBTC Account No.
5115-12827-6 came from unauthorized terminations of the placements of
other FEBTC clients. Bank records did not show that petitioner had
placements in FEBTC.
Florentino Bartolome, Jr. (Bartolome), officer-in-charge of the records unit
of FEBTC under its Central Operations Department in Intramuros, Manila,
received a request to retrieve documents concerning the theft cases against
petitioner. Using the available microfilm, microfiche[6] and CD-ROM's in
his office, Bartolome was able to retrieve certain documents, which he
presented in court. Ma. Theresa Vierneza (Vierneza), Head of the
Information Technology Group of FEBTC, confirmed that the documents
presented and identified by Bartolome were the same documents processed
by Bartolome's office.[7] (Citations omitted and emphasis in the original)
The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed that he only learned of the
criminal cases filed against him while he was in the United States of
America in 1998. He returned to the Philippines and inquired from Far East
Bank and Trust Company's (FEBTC) investigating committee the basis of
the charges against him. However, none of the committee's reports and
documents was shown to him. He admitted that Ma. Milagros T. Clemente
(Clemente) is his friend, but denied knowledge of the latter's fraudulent
transactions. He did not dispute ownership of FEBTC Savings Account No.
5115-12827-6, but he insisted that the money in his personal account was
owned by him as proceeds from the piggery business, which he established
with Clemente and their other friends. He admitted having delivered pre-
signed blank personal checks to Clemente but it was in pursuit of their
business. Besides, at that time, he knew that his Current Account No. 5015-
01498-9 had no funds, thus, Clemente cannot benefit therefrom. [8]
Five Informations[9] charging acts of theft allegedly committed in
conspiracy with Clemente were filed against the petitioner before the RTC.
Rulings of the RTC and the CA
On March 25, 2006, the RTC convicted the petitioner of two counts of theft
as charged in the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. MC 99-1456 and MC
99-1457. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered by this court finding the [petitioner]
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft as follows:
In Criminal Case No. MC 99-1456, [the petitioner] is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to
TWENTY (20) YEARS and to indemnify [FEBTC] the amount of
P1,262,774.50.
In Criminal Case No. MC 99-1457, [the petitioner] is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to
TWENTY (20) YEARS and to indemnify [FEBTC] the amount of
P450,000.00.
[In the] [m]eantime, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
[petitioner] in Criminal Cases Nos. MC[ ]99-1458, MC[ ]99-1459 and MC[ ]
99-1460, [the petitioner] is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge[s] in these
cases.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The RTC found that the prosecution had proven the elements of theft as far
as Criminal Case Nos. MC 99-1456 and MC 99-1457 are concerned. On
January 7, 1994 and February 9, 1994, the amounts of f 450,000.00 and
PI,262,774.50 were fraudulently credited by Clemente to the petitioner's
savings and current accounts, then withdrawn later. Liza Sarao (Sarao)
discovered the anomalies through the special audit she conducted in
FEBTC's Boni Avenue branch. Florentino Bartolome, Jr. (Bartolome)
retrieved the documents in support of Sarao's findings. [11]
The RTC found no credence in the petitioner's bare claim that the money in
his accounts were proceeds from the piggery business. The RTC likewise
considered the circumstance that the petitioner had ascribed no ill motives
against any of the prosecution witnesses impelling them to testify against
him. Further, the presumption provided for in Section 3(j), Rule 1.31 of the
Rules of Court applies in the instant case — a person found in possession of
a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer
of the whole act.[12]
The RTC, thus, concluded that the prosecution had proven by sufficient
circumstantial evidence that the petitioner took money belonging to
FEBTC.[13]
On September 20, 2012, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision,
partly granting the petitioner's appeal. The decretal portion of the CA
decision is quoted below:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The 25 March 2006 Decision of the [RTC] ofMandaluyong City, Branch 214
is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:"WHEREFORE, judgment is
rendered by this Court finding the [petitioner] GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Theft as follows:
In Criminal Case No. MC[ ]99-1456, [the petitioner] is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment in the minimum period of SIX (6)
YEARS to a maximum period of TWENTY (20) YEARS and to
indemnify [FEBTC] in [sic] the amount of P1,262,774.50.
In Criminal Case No. MC[ ]99-1457, [the petitioner] is hereby
ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove the
[petitioner's] guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
[In the] [m]eantime, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
[petitioner] in Criminal Cases Nos. MC[ ]99-1458, MC[ [99-1459 and MC[ ]
99-1460, [the petitioner] is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge[s] in these
cases.
SO ORDERED."
SO ORDERED.[14] (Emphasis in the original)
Tn rendering one, instead of two convictions, and modifying the penalty
imposed by the RTC, the CA explained that:
[B]ased on the records, [the petitioner] admitted ownership of the
following bank accounts: (1) 2100-93570-4; (2) 0101-90300-6;
(3) 5115-12827-6; and (4) 5015-01498-9. These accounts, per records of
the bank, were the very accountswhere the claimed illegally-credited
amounts were kept before they were ultimately withdrawn or otherwise
disposed of by [the petitioner]. Especially so that [the petitioner] further
admitted that the checks issued to allow the removal of the money from the
bank were signed by him.
xxxx
xxx (T]he elements of theft are as follows:
"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." x x x
Pertinently, a conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual cooperation; of
acts indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a concerted
action or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and actually
pursue it.
In Criminal Case [No.] MC 99-1456 committed on February 9,
1994, both the taking of the money and the conspiracy were
sufficiently proved by the prosecution by way of circumstantial evidence
and/or judicial admissions of [the petitioner] himself establishing: (1)
that [the petitioner] opened and owns the four subject accounts
in the bank; (2) that money belonging to the bank amounting to One
Million One Hundred Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-One Pesos and
Seventy-Four centavos (P1,150,631.74) was transferred by [Clemente] as
proceeds from placement to the account of one Teresita Clemente; (3)
that on the same day, the amount of One Million Two Hundred
Sixty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Four Pesos and
Fifty centavos (P1,262,774.50) was transferred by [Clemente]
from Teresita Clcmente's account to Jthe petitioner's] account
number 5115-12827-6; (4) that the same money ultimately ended
up in [the petitioner's Current] [A]ccount [NJumber 5015-
01498-9; and (5) that [the petitioner] finally disposed of the
money by issuing a check for the same amount.
While no direct evidence was established showing that (the petitioner]
literally and physically took the money from the bank, We agree with the
court a quo's finding that there was, indeed, enough circumstantial
evidence proving his guilt. Such pieces of evidence prevent Us
from reversing the lower court's conviction in MC 99-1456.
More so that Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:
"SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived arc proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt."
The combination of all the foregoing circumstances undeniably, and
beyond reasonable doubt, show that [the petitioner], conspiring with
Clemente, TOOK money BELONGING TO THE BANK with INTENT TO
GAIN but without use of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
Pitted against the [petitioner's] defense of denial, We are
convinced that there is sufficient evidence establishing his guilt
of theft in MC 99-1456 beyond reasonable doubt. Well established is
the rule that denials if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence
are negative, self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in
law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the
testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters.
[The petitioner] further attempts to cast doubt on his conviction by
claiming that there was no allegation of conspiracy in the Informations filed
against him.
xxxx
It is settled that the act of conspiring and all the elements of the crime is
required to be alleged in the complaint or information only when
conspiracy is charged as a crime.
The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when
conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of
committing the crime as in the case at bar. There is less necessity of
reciting its particularities in the Information because conspiracy is not the
gravamen of the offense charged.
Besides, it is settled that an information alleging conspiracy can stand even
if only one person is charged (except that the court cannot pass verdict
on the co-conspirators who were not charged in the information).
Criminal Case No. MC 99-1457
In Criminal Case No. MC[ ]99-1457, however, it is Our view that
the prosecution failed to prove [the petitioner's] participation in
the theft alleged when it failed to present in evidence the check allegedly
issued by the latter in order to supposedly withdraw the money from the
bank. Without this evidence linking [the petitioner] to the theft in Criminal
Case No. MC 99-1457, his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
stands.
The penalty for simple theft under the Revised Penal Code is as follows:
"Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter
amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one
prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional
ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be."
xxx
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods has a
range of six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Its maximum period
is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years; since
the incremental penalty in the instant case exceeds the maximum of twenty
(20) years, following the above provision, the maximum impossible
penalty for [the petitioner] is 20 years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103), the imposable
penalty therefore shall be anywhere between two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional minimum to six (6) years of prision
correccional maximum as minimum and the period oi twenty (20) years as
maximum.[15] (Citations omitted and emphasis in the original)
In the herein challenged Resolution[16] dated February 13, 2013, the CA
denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Issues
Aggrieved, the petitioner now presents before the Court the issues of
whether or not the CA committed serious and reversible error: (1) in
deciding contrary to the doctrines that (a) venue in criminal case is
jurisdictional, and (b) criminal liability, absent any conspiracy, is purely
personal; and (2) in holding that the circumstances surrounding the instant
case should rule out his innocence.[17]
In support of the issues raised, the petitioner avers that Sarao's casual
reference to "Boni" or "Boni Avenue" branch does not exclude the
possibility that the crime was committed not in Mandaluyong City, but
somewhere else in the country.[18]
Further, the petitioner is the sole accused in the case at bar, and in the
Information filed relative to Criminal Case No. MC 99-1456, there is no
allegation of conspiracy between him and Clemcntc.[19] Therefore, he cannot
be convicted of criminal acts committed by Clemente.[20]
The petitioner likewise emphasizes that there is no extant evidence pointing
to the fact that he stepped foot and physically withdrew money in FEBTC's
Boni Avenue branch around the time the fraudulent transaction took place
in February 9, 1994.[21] Besides, Sarao herself admitted the possibility that
money could have been credited to the petitioner's account without his
knowledge.[22]
The OSG, on the other hand, argues that the- Information unequivocally
charges that the theft was committed in Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong City. [23]
Moreover, the elements of theft are present in the instant case. Specifically,
the money belonged to FEBTC. Sarao, through the records stored in
FEBTC's Central Operations Department, was able to trail the movement of
the money, which was eventually withdrawn from the petitioner's current
account. The money was drawn through the issuance of a check indicating
the amount of P1,262,774.50, which was indisputably signed by the
petitioner. The prosecution had presented as evidence the microfilm copy
of the said check.[24]
The OSG likewise reiterates the CA's disquisition that the congruence of
circumstances attendant to the instant case amply proved the petitioner's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[25]
The OSG also contends that the Information sufficiently states that the
taking, stealing and carrying away of FEBTC's money in the amount of
P1,262,774.50 was done with Clemente, a Marketing Assistant/Trader of
FEBTC, Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong City Branch.[26]
The OSG further points out that the petitioner presented no evidence to
show the legitimate origin of the money which found its way into his
account, or any improper motives which any of the witnesses could have
harbored against the latter.[27]
Ruling of the Court
The instant petition has no merit. However, the Court modifies the CA 's
decision by directing the payment of interest upon the indemnity due to
FEBTC.
The Court need not delve on the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner
as the arguments are trifling and the CA had already amply disposed of the
same.[28]
In the Information filed, conspiracy was sufficiently alleged merely as a
mode of committing the crime.
As the second issue, the petitioner argues that the prosecution made a
faulty allegation of conspiracy in the Information filed with the RTC.
In Lazarte, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), et al., [29] the Court is
emphatic that:
Notably, in People v. Quillong, as pointed out by respondent, the Court
ruled on how conspiracy as a mode of committing the offense should be
alleged in the Information, viz:
xxxx
A conspiracy indictment need not, of course, aver all the components of
conspiracy or allege all the details thereof, like the part that each of the
parties therein have performed, the evidence proving the common design
or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web of the
conspiracy. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same
degree of particularity required in describing a substantive offense. It is
enough that the indictment contains a statement of facts relied upon to be
constitutive of the offense in ordinary and concise language, with as much
certainty as the nature of the case will admit, in a manner that can enable a
person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with such
precision that the accused may plead his acquittal or conviction to a
subsequent indictment based on the same facts. It is said, generally, that an
indictment may be held sufficient "if it follows the words of the statute and
reasonably informs the accused of the character of the offense he is charged
with conspiring to commit, or, following the language of the statute,
contains a sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, or alleges both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in
the language of the respective statutes defining them (15A C.J.S. 842-844).
x x x Conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy
comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the felony and forthwith to actually pursue it. Verily, the
information must state that the accused have confederated to commit the
crime or that there has been a community of design, a unity of purpose or
an agreement to commit the felony among the accused. Such an allegation,
in the absence of the usual usage of the words "conspired" or
"confederated" or the phrase "acting in conspiracy," must aptly appear in
the information in the form of definitive acts constituting conspiracy. In
fine, the agreement to commit the crime, the unity of purpose or the
community of design among the accused must be conveyed such as either
by the use of the term "conspire" or its derivatives and synonyms or by
allegations of basic facts constitutinu the conspiracy. Conspiracy must be
alleged, not just inferred, in the information on which basis an accused can
aptly enter his plea, a matter that is not to be confused with or likened to
the adequacy of evidence that may be required to prove it. In establishing
conspiracy when properly alleged, the evidence to support it need not
necessarily be shown by direct proof but may be inferred from shown acts
and conduct of the accused.[30] (Citations omitted and underlining ours)
In the case at bench, the Information in Criminal Case No. MC 99-1456
reads:
That on or about the 9th day of February 1994, in the City of Mandaluyong,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
[petitioner], with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of
[FEBTC], Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong Branch, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away from [FEBTC] in
the total amount of P1,262,774.50 with [Clemente], a Marketing
Assistant/Trader of [FEBTC], Boni Avenue, Mandaluyong Branch,
fraudulently and illegally crediting the aforesaid amount to the
[petitioner's] Account Number 5115-12827-6 with [FHBTC], through credit
memo and accounting entries to the damage and prejudice of [FEBTC] in
the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[31] (Italics ours)
In the instant case, conspiracy is alleged only as a mode of committing the
crime. The Court finds that the Information filed against the petitioner
adequately complied with the requirements as set forth in Lazarte. The
Information charges that the petitioner, with Clemente, took FEBTCs
money through fraudulent transfers to and withdrawal from the former's
Account Number 5115-12827-6. Although the words "conspire" and
"confederated" do not appear in the indictment, there is a clear allegation
that the petitioner and Clemente were united in their purpose of
fraudulently taking FEBTC's money. The Information, thus, enables the
petitioner to amply prepare for his defense.
In Tan, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[32] cited by the CA, the Court declared that
"an information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is
charged except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators
who were not charged in the information."[33] Ideally, Clemente and the
petitioner should have been indicted together. However, the non-inclusion
of Clemente does not invalidate the Information filed against the petitioner
especially since conspiracy is not charged as a crime, but is merely alleged
to show how criminal liability was incurred.
Circumstantial evidence concur
leading to the conclusion that the
petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the charge against him.
The petitioner claims that the circumstantial evidence offered by the
prosecution do not add up to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This,
too, deserves short shrift.
In addition to the circumstances[34] which the CA had already considered in
the prosecution's favor, the Court finds those discussed below as
determinative of the petitioner's guilt as well.
First, it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns[35] and that the ordinary course of business has been followed.
[36]
The petitioner in this case was a bank officer. He can be reasonably
charged with knowledge of banking procedures and the liabilities which
may-attach to him by reason of maintaining current accounts. It perplexes
the Court why he delivered blank checks to Clemente and subsequently not
even bothered to inquire about the status of the said checks and his current
account against which the checks may be drawn.[37] The Court further finds
no credence in his claim that he received no statements or notices relative
to his current account in FEBTC's Boni Avenue branch. [38] Bartolome
testified that checks are microfilmed, and thereafter, the originals are
returned to the account holder.[39] He also stated that bank statements are
sent to the account holders on or before every 15th day of the month.[40] The
petitioner ascribed no ill motive against Bartolome and the former had not
offered any evidence to show why FEBTC would have treated his accounts
as exceptions by not sending back to him the original check which was
cleared and the bank statements indicating any transactions relative to his
accounts. It bears stressing that the petitioner's employment was only
severed in 1998 while the anomalous transfers and withdrawal occurred in
1994. The petitioner had four years, more or less, to inquire from FEBTC
itself or from Clemente the details about the transfers and withdrawal.
During the trial, he pleaded lack of knowledge about the transactions. This
does not inspire belief.
Second, the petitioner testified that the piggery business he set up with
Clemente and their other friends folded up after three months. [41]He also
claimed that he delivered signed blank checks to Clemente because the
latter was the one controlling the finances of their piggery business. [42] The
Court, however, notes that while the fraudulent transaction which is the
subject of the instant petition occurred on February 9, 1994, the petitioner
also testified that in September of 1996, his payroll account was credited
with P38,000.00 and P15,000.00.[43] He withdrew the amounts as they
belonged to him as profits from their piggery business. While claiming that
the piggery business lasted only for three months, the petitioner at the
same time alleged that after more than two years, he still received profits
from the said business. The inconsistencies fail to lend credit to the
petitioner's assertions.
No compelling grounds exist for the
Court to reverse the uniform factual
findings of the RTC and the CA anent
the petitioner's guilt in Criminal Case
No. MC 99-1456.
It is settled that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and
which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[44]The foregoing rule finds
an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the
CA.[45]
In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution was
able to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon it as regards the
liability of the petitioner in Criminal Case No. MC 99-1456. No compelling
grounds exist for the Court to depart from the RTC and CA's findings.
The Court, however, directs the
imposition of legal interest upon the
amount of indemnity due to FEBTC.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence relative to criminal actions, interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, shall be imposed on all the
damages awarded, to be reckoned from the date of the finality of this
resolution until full satisfaction thereof.[46]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated September 20,
2012 and Resolution dated February 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 30621 are AFFIRMED subject only to
the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. MC 99-
1456, FRANCISCO T. INOCENCIO is directed to indemnify Far East
Bank and Trust Company the amount of P1,262,774.50, which shall be
subject to INTEREST at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be
computed from the date of the finality of this resolution until full
satisfaction thereof.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr., and Perez,*
JJ., concur.
January 5, 2016
N O T I C E OF J U D G M E N T
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on ___November 9, 2015___ a Decision, copy
attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-
entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on January 5,
2016 at 3:00 p.m.
