G.R. No. 259511 - Tumog y Cajatol vs. People

On or before May 31, 2015, in Kagawasan Village Subdivision, Pagadian City, petitioner Nhorkayam Tumog y Cajatol unlawfully entered the house of Dr. Mariam Aluk Espinoza by forcibly breaking the wooden wall of the kitchen or through the window.
Petitioner, without carrying any arm, took various items including rice, electronic appliances, jewelry, cash, cameras, and other valuables belonging to Dr. Espinoza, estimated at Php 325,300.00.
Petitioner was previously hired by Dr. Espinoza as a stay-out errand boy and worked as an all-around janitor in her office. Privacy and trust were established prior to the incident.

Dr. Espinoza left for Manila on May 30, 2015, locking her house before leaving. Upon return on May 31, 2015, she found her house forcibly entered, with removed windowpanes and broken kitchen side wall. Several items were missing.
She reported the incident to the barangay officials and the Pagadian City Police Station.
On May 31 and June 1, 2015, petitioner was seen exhibiting ill behavior at the office and eventually found at his rented boarding house with some stolen items in his possession.
Petitioner, accompanied by his relatives, voluntarily surrendered to the pagadian police, presenting some of the stolen property and asking for forgiveness.
Police Officer Renjie Narciso conducted an inventory of recovered items from petitioner’s boarding house, which both petitioner and a relative signed. Dr. Espinoza identified the stolen items at the police station.

An Information was filed on June 4, 2015, charging petitioner with robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Petitioner did not present any evidence or defense during the trial.
The RTC convicted petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of robbery, sentencing him to ten (10) years and four (4) months imprisonment and ordering indemnification of Php 325,000.00. The ruling was grounded on circumstantial evidence and the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal maximum, factoring in the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
The CA rejected petitioner’s claims of illegal arrest and exclusion of evidence, clarifying that petitioner voluntarily surrendered and consented to the inventory.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied.

Petitioner invoked in this Petition for Review on Certiorari that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and claimed liability only for theft, not robbery, as there was no proof of force used upon things.
He challenged the application of the disputable presumption and the penalty imposed.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for robbery under Article 299(a)(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the application of the disputable presumption under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, supporting the conviction based on possession of the stolen items, was proper.
Whether the offenses committed by petitioner should be classified as robbery or theft.
Whether the lower courts erred in awarding civil indemnity of Php 325,000.00 despite the return of the stolen items.
Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals should be modified based on the circumstances and applicable law.