Case Digest (G.R. No. 143561)
Facts:
This is Jonathan D. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals, People of the Philippines and Davao Light and Power Co., G.R. No. 143561, June 06, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jonathan Cariaga (the accused) was prosecuted for qualified theft in an amended information dated October 3, 1989 charging him with stealing electrical equipment and materials worth P7,038.96 from his employer Davao Light & Power Company (DLPC) while working as driver of DLPC service truck S-143. Judge Nicasio O. De Los Reyes presided at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Davao City.The underlying facts, as found by the trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals (CA), arose from a covert operation initiated by DLPC systems analyst Luis Miguel Aboitiz, assisted by Sgt. Fermin Villasis of the San Pedro Patrol Station and an undercover civilian agent, Florencio Siton (alias “Canuto Duran”). Siton, posing as an electrician, purchased DLPC electrical materials from private electricians and fences, including transactions that implicated petitioner as the source of certain items. On November 17, 1988 and January 23, 1989 Siton bought items (lightning arresters and rolls of wire) which were traced to petitioner; a police “bust” on February 1, 1989 recovered numerous electrical items. Ricardo Cariaga (a private electrician and petitioner’s cousin) gave an extrajudicial sworn statement implicating petitioner but did not testify at the criminal trial; his sworn statement had been annexed to DLPC’s position paper in petitioner’s earlier labor case for illegal dismissal.
On November 18, 1991 the RTC convicted petitioner of qualified theft (Article 310, in relation to Art. 309(2) of the Revised Penal Code) and imposed an indeterminate sentence; it ordered return of recovered items to DLPC. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 13363 (People v. Jonathan Cariaga), penned by Justice Eubolo G. Verzola with Justices Artemon D. Luna and B.A. Adefuin‑Dela Cruz concurring, affirmed the conviction on April 24, 1995, upholding (a) admission of Ricardo’s sworn statement as admissible under Section 47, Rule 130 and Section 1(f), Rule 115, Rules of Court, and (b) the credibility of Siton’s testimony.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), raising three assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in admitting Ricardo’s sworn statement although he did not testify in court (violation of the right to confront witnesses and Rule 115(1)(f)); (2...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Ricardo Cariaga’s extrajudicial sworn statement admissible against petitioner despite his failure to testify at the criminal trial (confrontation/unavailability under Rule 115(1)(f) and Rule 130, Sec. 47)?
- Was the testimony of undercover witness Florencio Siton credible and sufficient to sustain conviction despite alleged inconsistencies and his being a paid agent?
- Did the exculpatory statements of petitioner’s superiors create reasonable dou...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)