G.R. No. 251732 - Tijam vs. People

Petitioners Julius Enrico Tijam and Kenneth Bacsid were charged with Theft under Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly stealing a Samsung Galaxy A7 cellular phone valued at Php25,000.00 owned by Kim Mugot.
Incident occurred around 1:30 a.m. on August 18, 2017, at SM Mall of Asia, Pasay City.
Mugot was boarding a bus when he was pinned against the door by Bacsid and later noticed his phone missing.
Mugot saw Tijam handing over the phone to Bacsid in the unloading area; he shouted "magnanakaw!" and tried to recover his phone.
Security guard Romnick Sarmiento apprehended the petitioners and reported the incident.
Petitioners denied the charge: Tijam said he found the phone on the ground and showed it to Bacsid before being accused by Mugot.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 111 Pasay City, found petitioners guilty of Theft on July 12, 2018, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty.
RTC ruled the prosecution proved all elements of theft beyond reasonable doubt, relying partly on the disputable presumption of possession in recent wrongful act.
RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration; petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On November 20, 2019, CA affirmed the conviction, citing positive identification by Mugot and rejecting petitioners' defenses.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration before the CA was also denied on January 29, 2020.

Petitioners claim the prosecution failed to prove unlawful taking, relying only on possession presumption.
They assert Mugot's testimony is not credible.
Petitioners stress lack of direct or clear circumstantial evidence.
They argue their denial should be given weight owing to insufficient prosecution evidence.

OSG argued that questions raised are factual, not proper for a petition for review.
Maintains that prosecution sufficiently established elements of theft through Mugot’s testimony.
Asserts Mugot's identification and narrative support the petitioners' guilt.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of Theft against petitioners Tijam and Bacsid.