Case Digest (G.R. No. 150487)
Facts:
Arturo Esteban y Santos, Rogelio Mangali, and Isidro Soriano y Perfecto v. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 101671, February 09, 1993, Second Division, Campos, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are three employees of the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) who were indicted for qualified theft (Crim. Case No. 88-69078) after capacitors installed on MERALCO posts along Maria Orosa Street were discovered missing on December 18, 1988. MERALCO’s Line Patrol Team investigated pilferages and traced a lead to statements by Benito Almosara, a security guard of Max’s Restaurant (Maria Orosa branch).On December 19, 1988, Almosara was taken to the Western Police District and executed an affidavit reporting that three men riding a MERALCO truck (plate PGU-734, body no. 731) had visited the restaurant, asked about closing time, then returned around 11:00 p.m.; he recorded the truck’s plate and body numbers in the restaurant logbook and later saw two men scale the post and lower equipment to a third man on the truck. On December 21, 1988, Almosara executed a second affidavit and identified the three men as petitioners: Isidro Soriano y Perfecto, Arturo Esteban y Santos, and Rogelio Mangali y Cortez; he repeated this identification at trial and described being about ten meters from the post.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, found the three guilty of qualified theft in a decision dated July 28, 1990, crediting Almosara’s testimony and the contemporaneous logbook entry. The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 09718; penned by Associate Justice Bonifacio A. Cacdac, Jr., Aug. 30, 1991) affirmed, holding that the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that minor inconsistencies in Almosara’s testimony did not undermine his credibility. The petitioners filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the courts below for relying on Almosara’s identification despite alleged inconsistencies: (1) discrepancies in his description of the capacitors; (2) failure to specify w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in accepting the identification of petitioners by Benito Almosara despite alleged inconsistencies and the absence of a police lineup?
- Was Benito Almosara’s eyewitness testimony, viewed in the whole record, credible and sufficient to convict petitioners of qualified theft...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)