Adm. Case No. 349 - People vs. Macalindong

The Provincial Government of Batangas owned approximately 500 steel wheelbarrows, stored both inside and outside a bodega in the old provincial government building.
Although many wheelbarrows had defective chassis, their wheels remained serviceable and of use.
Prior to June 12, 1942, it was customary that some wheelbarrow components were defective while others remained intact; yet, around January 1942, discrepancies had already been noted regarding missing wheelbarrows and wheels.

On June 12, 1942, it was established that about ten wheelbarrow wheels were removed from the government building.
The theft was orchestrated by defendant and appellant Geronimo Macalindong, with the assistance of two companions, Laureano Ilagan and Eduardo Bombeta.
The entry into the government building was executed through a hole in the rear wall, thereby bypassing regular security measures.
Eustaquio Casenas, a clerk in the district engineer’s office, discovered that a number of wheelbarrows and wheels had disappeared, although the disappearance had been noted as early as January 1942 in part.

Upon removal from the government building, the wheels were loaded into a carromata driven by the defendant.
Defendant transported the wheels to Sebio’s Hotel in Batangas, where he distributed two wheels each to his accomplices as compensation.
The remaining six wheels were taken by the defendant to his residence in the barrio of Sambat in the municipality of Batangas.
Supporting evidence included the discovery of one of the stolen wheels in the defendant’s possession.

Laureano Ilagan and Eduardo Bombeta – testified on the removal and handling of the wheels.
Eustaquio Casenas and Marciano Ebreo – confirmed the disappearance of government property.
Policemen Urbano de la Paz, Buenaventura Dris; Chief of Police Apolonio Corpus; and Batangas Mayor Roman Perez – provided corroborative testimony regarding the incident.

The prosecution established that the wheels, though initially alleged to be valued at P135, were in fact assessed at approximately P10.
The defense, however, cited an alternate sequence where defendant encountered Laureano Ilagan and Eduardo Bombeta at his brother-in-law Eusebio Pagcaliwagan’s store, leading to a purchase transaction for four wheels for the sum of P4.15.

A noted discrepancy was the difference in the timeline: while witnesses for the prosecution maintained that the theft occurred on June 12, 1942, Marciano Ebreo testified that he had noted the disappearance of the wheels since January 1942.
The defense attempted to use this timeline discrepancy to undermine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Additionally, the defense argued that the defendant was apprehended due to his failure to appear before the chief of police when ordered, although the police clarified that the complaint was only filed on August 29, 1942—after a complete investigation.

Whether the combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the evidence regarding the removal and handling of the wheelbarrow wheels is coherent and credible.

The conflict between the testimonies of Laureano Ilagan and Eduardo Bombeta versus that of Marciano Ebreo regarding the timeline of the disappearance.
Whether any motive existed for the prosecution witnesses to fabricate their testimony.

Whether the defendant’s narrative about a purchase transaction at Eusebio Pagcaliwagan’s store weakens the chain of evidence linking him to the theft.
How the apparent inconsistencies in accounts affect the evaluation of guilt versus reasonable doubt.