Case Digest (G.R. No. 142039)
Facts:
Modesto Moody Mabunga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 142039, May 27, 2004, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Modesto Moody Mabunga was charged with robbery with force upon things under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code for the theft of a typewriter from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) office in Capaclan, Romblon. The BFP employees discovered the broken hasp and missing Triumph typewriter (Serial No. 340118640) when they reported for work on October 2, 1994. The information was filed on February 7, 1995; Mabunga pleaded not guilty and went to trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, Romblon.
Prosecution witnesses (including Diana Malay, tricycle driver Sixto Bernardo, BFP employee Davy Villaruel, cashier Sylvia Comienzo, and SPO2 Eleazar Madali) testified that on October 15, 1994 they saw petitioner carrying a box marked "HOPE," which he allegedly left at the PPA terminal; the box was later opened and the missing typewriter allegedly found inside. Police surveillance and coordination with PPA personnel preceded recovery of the box and opening of its contents. The prosecution relied in part on the presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence — that a person in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker.
Petitioner raised alibi, testifying that he had been traveling in late September and early October 1994 and produced bus tickets and receipts to support his account; he admitted bringing a box to the pier but insisted it was marked "CHAMPION" and contained marble novelties. The RTC convicted him of robbery and imposed an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, principally invoking Section 3(j) of Rule 131 and finding petitioner had possession of the stolen typewriter. The CA denied reconsideration, and petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing (1) disregard of h...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in disregarding petitioner’s alibi and sustaining conviction on the basis of the presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131, despite the absence of positive identification?
- Was the admission in evidence of the typewriter, allegedly seized without a warrant and in the absence of petitioner, reversible error?
- Did the courts err in presuming the element of intent to gain when petitioner allegedly left the b...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)